|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:I 14'3 g ASNIIKQVQN PUBLIC POWER M-911 SUPPLY SYSTEM c 0~/6 Z | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| )
| |
| !'.-'" >P p
| |
| D -P/-77 7 /I/Id/Bg-,>' ~~
| |
| | |
| Washington Public Power Supply System A JOINT OPERATING AGENCY P. 0. BOX 966 3000 GEO. WASHINGTON WAT RiCHLAND, WASHINGTON 99352 PHONSI 509) 946 ~ l6ll Docket No. 50-397 March 21, 1977 G02-77-124 Mr. Benard C. Rusche, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
| |
| | |
| ==Subject:==
| |
| WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OPERATING LICENSE STAGE SUBMITTAL FOR DOCKETING
| |
| | |
| ==Reference:==
| |
| Letter, R. S. Boyd, NRC to D. L. Renberger, WPPSS, dated February 17, 1977.
| |
| | |
| ==Dear Mr. Rusche:==
| |
| | |
| Washington Public Power Supply System is hereby submitting for docketing forty-one (41) copies including three (3) notarized originals of the subject document as requested in the referenced letter. Within (10) days of notification of docketing, distribution will be made according to the attached distribution list and an affidavit to that effect provided.
| |
| Environmental Technical Specifications are being prepared for submittal by June 1, 1977, Very truly yours, D. L. RENBERGER Assistant Director Generation and Technology DLR:RKW:vws Attachment cc: Distribution List
| |
| | |
| I I
| |
| W l
| |
| | |
| ==Subject:==
| |
| WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OPERATING LICENSE STAGE SUBMITTAL FOR DOCKETING STATE OF WASHINGTON ss COUNTY OF BENTON )
| |
| D. L. RENBERGER, Being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is the Assistant Director, Generation and Technology, for the WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, the applicant herein; that he is authorized to submit the foregoing on behalf of said applicant; that he has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof; and believes the same to be true to the best of his knowledge.
| |
| DATED ~~ ~ , 1977 D. L. RENBERGER On this day personally appeared before me D. L. RENBERGER to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
| |
| GIVEN under my hand and seal this /~~~day of , 1977.
| |
| Notary Public in and.for the State of Washington Residing at
| |
| | |
| s V
| |
| | |
| DOT REGIONAL OFFICE (1) cc: (transmittal letter only)
| |
| Secretarial Representative Director U. S. Department of Transportation Washington State Parks and 3112 Federal Building Recreation Commission 915 Second Avenue P. 0. Box 1128 Seattle, Washington 98174 Olympia, Washington 98504 I
| |
| ENV RONMENTAL PROTECTI.'GENCY NATIONAL'ABORATORY Chief, Energy Systems Analyses (1) Dr. Philip F. Gustafson, Manager (10)
| |
| Branch (AW-459) Environmental Statement Project Office of Radiation Programs Argonne National Laboratory U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 9700 South Cass Avenue Room 645, East Tower Argonne, Illinois 60439 M Street, S. W.
| |
| '01 Washington, D. C. 20460 RIVER BASIN COMMISSION Chief, Environmental Evaluation (1) Pacific Northwest River Basins Branch (WH-548) Commission (2)
| |
| Office of Water and Hazardous Materials P. 0. Box 908 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1 Columbia River Room 2818, Waterside Mal,l Vancouver, Washington 98660 401 M Street, S. W.
| |
| Washington, D. C. 20460 AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
| |
| 'OUSING REGIONAL OFFICE EPA REGIONAL OFFICE (4)
| |
| Regional Administrator (1)
| |
| Environmental Statement Coordinator ATTN: Environmental Clear ance U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Officer Region X Office U. S. Department of'ousing and 1200 6th Avenue Urban Development Seattle, Washington 98101 Arcade Plaza Building 1321 Second Avenue ARMY ENGINEERING DISTRICT Seattle,"Washington 98101 U. S. Department of the Army (1) cc: (transmittal letter only)
| |
| Corps of Engineers, Seattle 4735 East Marginal Way South Mr. Richard H. Broun Seattle, Washington 98134 Environmental Clearance Officer Department of Housing and ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC Urban Development PRESERVATION 1 451 7th Street, S. W., Rm. 7258 Washington, D. C. 20410 Hr. Robert Garvey, Executive Director Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1522 K Street, N. W., Suite 430 rlas hi ngton, D. C. 20005
| |
| | |
| DISTRIBUTION LIST
| |
| : ~
| |
| ENVIPOi'l~icNTAL REPORT, AMENDMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTS Number in parens indicates number of copies DEPAR il NT OF COi~!N'"s'ICE FEDERAL PO 'IER COl Il'1 ISS ION Or. Sidney R. Caller 6)
| |
| Deputy Assistant Secretary Mr. Whitman Ridgway, Chief (1) for Environmental Affairs Bureau of Power U. S. Department of Commerce Federal Power Commission, Rm...5100 14th & Constitution, i'l. W., Rm. 3425 825 North Capi tol Street, N. E.
| |
| Washington, D. C. 20230 Washington, D. C. 20426 Mr. Robert Ochinero, Director (1) Dr. Carl N. Schuster, Jr. (2)
| |
| National Oceanographic Data'enter Federal Power Commission, Rm. 4016 Environmental Data Service 825 North Capitol Street, N..E.
| |
| National Oceanic and Atmospheric Washington, D. C. 20426 Administration U. S. Department of Commerce D EPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Washington, D. C. 20235 transmittal letter only addressed to:)
| |
| DEPARTS'!ENT OF INTERIOR Hr. Bruce Blanchard, Director"(18) Mr. Joseph Canny Office of Environmental Projects Office of Environmental Affair s Peview, Room 4239 U. S. Department of Transportation U. S. Department of the Interior 400 7th Street, S. tl., Rm. 9422 18th & C Streets, N. ',I. Washington, D. C. 20590 Washington, D. C. 20240 cc: .transmittal letter to:
| |
| cc: (transmittal letter only)
| |
| Chief Capt. William R. Riedel Division of Ecological Servi.ces tlater Resources Coordinator Bureau of Scor. Fisheries 8 ':lildlife .W/S 73 USCG, Poom 7306 U. S. Department of the Interior U. S. Department of Trans-18th & C Streets, N. W. portation Washington, D. C. 20240 400 7th Street. S. W.
| |
| Washington, D. C. 20590 DEPARTliENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE (After DES is issued, send 4 copies of ER & Amendments to Mr. Charles Custard, Director (2) Riedel)
| |
| Office of Environmental Affairs U. S. Department of Health, cc: w/1 cy of enclosure:
| |
| Education and ~riel are, Room 524F2 200 Independence Avenue, S. W. . Mr. Ja~es T. Cur ti s, Jr., Di r.
| |
| Washington, D. C. 20201 ~
| |
| t!aterials Transportation Bure 2100 Second Street, S. W.
| |
| Washington, D. C. 20590
| |
| | |
| ADJOINING STATES CLEARINGHOUSES Di.rector, Oregon Department of Office of the Governor (10)
| |
| Energy (1) Office of Program Planning and 528 Cottage Street, N. E. Fiscal Management Salem, Oregon 97310 Olympia, Washington 98504 Or. Kel'ly Woods (1) Benton-Franklin Governmental (1)
| |
| Oregon Energy Facility Siting Conference Council 906 Jadwin Avenue 528 Cottage, Street, N. E. Richland, Washington 99352 Salem, Oregon 97310 Librarian/Thermal Reactors Safety (1)
| |
| Group Building 130 Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton. L. I., New York 11973 Atomic Industrial Forum (1) 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
| |
| Washington, D. C. 20006 LOCAl OFF I.CIAL Mr. James 0. Zwicker, Chairman (1)
| |
| Benton County Board of Cottmissioners CourthoUse Prosser, Washington 99350 STATE OFFICIAL State Planning (1)
| |
| Office of Pr ogram Planning 8 Fiscal Management Room 105, House Office Building Olympia, Washington 98501 Mr. Roger Polzin, Executive (1)
| |
| Secretary Energy Facility Site Evluation Council 820 East Fifth Avenue Olympia, Washington 98504
| |
| | |
| R C
| |
| (
| |
| ~ l
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT OPERATING LICENSE STAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Title ~Pa e PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY l. 0-1 1.0 Definition 1. 0-1 1.1 Need for Power 1.1-1 1.2 Other Objectives 1~2 1 1.3 Consequences of Delay 1~3 1 THE SITE AND ENIVRONMENTAL INTERFACES 2.1-1 2.1 Geography and Demography 2.1-1 2.2 Ecology 2 ~ 2 1 2.3 Meteorology 2 ~ 3 1 2.4 Hydrology 2. 4-1 2.5 Geology 2.5-1 2.6 Regional Historic, Scenic, Cultural, and Natural Features 2.6-1 3 THE PLANT 3. 1-1 3.1 External Appearance 3.1-1 3.2 Reactor and Steam-Electric System 3 ~ 2 1 3.3 Plant Water Use 3. 3-1=
| |
| 3.4 Heat Dissipation System 3.4-1 3.5 Radwaste Systems and Source Term 3.5-1 3.6 Chemical and Biocide Wastes 3.6-1 3.7 Sanitary and Other Wastes 3 ~ 7 1 3.8 Reporting of Radioactive Material Movement 3.8-1 3.9 Transmission Facilities 3.9-1 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF S ITE PREPARATION g PLANT AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION 4.1-1 4.1 Site Preparation and Plant Construction 4.1-1 4.2 Transmission Facilities Constuction 4.2-1 4.3 Resources Committed 4.3-1 4.4 Radioactivity 4.4-1 4.5 Construction Impact Control Program 4.5-1 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PLANT OPERATION 5.1-1 5.1 Effects of Operation-of Heat Dissipation System 5.1-1 5.2 Radiological Impact from Routine Operation 5.2-1 5.3 Effects of Chemical and Biocide Discharges 5.3-1 5.4 Effects of Sanitary Waste Discharges 5.4-1 5.5 Effects of Operation and Maintenance of the Transmission Systems 5.5-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER" TABLE. OF CONTENTS (Continued):
| |
| C~ha ter Title Page 5.6 Other Effects. 5. 6-1
| |
| : 5. '/ Resources Committed 5.7-1
| |
| ,5 c
| |
| ~ 8 Decommissioning and Dismantling 5 '-1 I
| |
| .,6 4 l~
| |
| EFFLUENT AND .ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 6.1-1 s
| |
| ~ a ~
| |
| ;6~1 Preoperational Environmental Programs 6. 1-1
| |
| . 6~2 Operational Environmental Programs 6.2-1 6.3 Related Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Programs 6.3-1 6.4 Preoperational Environmental Radiological Monitoring Data . 6.4-1 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF'CCIDENTS
| |
| ,7',- Stat'ion Accidents I'nvolving Radioactivity 701-1
| |
| '-1
| |
| ~
| |
| 7.2 Other Accidents J
| |
| 7
| |
| .. 8'. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 8.1-1 8.1 Benefits 8.1-1 8.2 Costs 8.2-1 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND SITES 9.1-1 9.1 Alternatives Not Requiring the Creation of New Generating Capacity 9 ~ 1-1 9.2 Alternatives Requiring the Creation of New Generating Capacity 9.2-1 9.3 Selection of Candidate Areas 9.3-1 9.4 Cost-Benefit Comparison of Candidate Site Plant Alternatives 9.4-1 10 PLANT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 10.1-1
| |
| : 10. 1 Cooling System Alternatives 10.1-1 10.2 Intake System 10.2-1
| |
| ~10.3 Discharge System Alternatives 10.3-1 10.4 Chemical Waste Treatment 10.4-1 10.5 Biocide Treatment 10.5-1 10.6 Sanitary Waste System 10.6-1 10.7 Liquid Radwaste Systems 10.7-1 10.8 Gaseous Radwaste Systems 10.8-1 10.9 Transmission Facilities 10.9-1 10.10 Other Systems 10.10-1
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS 11.1-1
| |
| : 3. 2.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE OF CONTENTS (Conte.nue Chapter Title ~Va e 12 ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS AND CONSULTATION 12.1-1
| |
| : 12. 1 General State Licensing 12.1-1
| |
| : 12. 2 General Federal Licensing 12.2-1
| |
| : 12. 3 State and Federal Water Related Permits 12.3-1
| |
| : 12. 4 State, Local and Regional Planning Economic Impact 12.4-1
| |
| : 12. 5 Specific Permit Status 12.5-1
| |
| : 12. 6 Other 12.6-1 13 REFERENCE S 13.1-1 APPENDIX I. ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS I-1 APPENDIX II. RADIOLOGICAL DOSE MODELS II-1 APPENDIX III. STATEMENT'Y HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER III-1 APPENDIX IV. NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM WASTE DISCHARGE PERMIT IV-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL LIST OF TABLES Table No.
| |
| 1.1-1(a) PACIFIC NORTHWEST UTILITIES CONfERENCE COMMITTEE WEST GROUP AREA - COMPARISON OF ACTUAL WITH ESTIMATED WINTER PEAK LOADS 1.1-1(b) PACIFIC NORTHWEST UTILITIES CONFERENCE COMMITTEE WEST GROUP AREA - PERCENT DEVIATION BETWEEN ACTUAL AND ESTIMATED WINTER PEAK FIRM LOADS
| |
| -1.1-2(a) PACIfIC NORTHWEST UTILITIES CONFERENCE COMMITTEE WEST GROUP AREA - COMPARISON OF ACTUAL WITH ESTIMATED 12 MONTHS AVERAGE FIRM LOADS 1.1-2(b) PACIFIC NORTHWEST UTILITIES CONFERENCE COMMITTEE WEST GROUP AREA - PERCENT DEVIATION BETWEEN ACTUAL AND ESTIMATED 12 MONTHS AVERAGE FIRM LOADS F 1 3
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF LOADS AND RESOURCES 1.1-4 WEST GROUP RESOURCE ADDITIONS BY SCHEDULED DATE 5 COMMERCIAL OPERATION 1.1-5 WEST GROUP RESOURCE ADDITIONS BY PROBABLE ENERGY DATES 1.1-6 PUBLIC AGENCY - BPA ENERGY RESOURCES 5 REQUIREMENTS 1.1-7 WEST GROUP CAPACITY (PEAK) RESOURCES AND REQUIREMENTS 1.1-8 WEST GROUP ENERGY RESOURCES AND REQUIREMENTS 2.1-1 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY COMPASS SECTOR AND DISTANCE FROM THE SITE 2.1-2 DISTANCES FROM WNP-2 TO VARIOUS ACTIVITIES 2.1-3 INDUSTRY WITHIN A 10 MILE RADIUS OF SITE
| |
| : 2. 2-'1( a) TERRESTRIAL FLORA AND FAUNA NEAR WNP-1/4 AND WNP-2 2.2-1(b) COLUMBIA RIVER BIOTA 202-2 NUMBER OF SPAWNING FALL CHINOOK SALMON AT HANFORD, 1947 - 1977 1V Amendment 5 July 1981
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER LIST OF TABLES (continued)
| |
| Table No.
| |
| 2.3-1a AVERAGES AND EXTREMES, OR CLIMATIC ELEMENTS AT HANFORD 2.3-1b AVERAGES AND EXTREMES OR'LIMATIC ELEMENTS AT HANFORD (cont.)
| |
| 2\ 32a ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY'OR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES FOR WNP-2 BASED ON WINDS AT 33 FT AND TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 245 AND 33 FT VERY UNSTABLE 2.3.2b ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY FOR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES FOR WNP-2 BASED ON WINDS AT 33 FT AND TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 245 AND 33 FT UNSTABLE 2.3.2c ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY FOR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES FOR. WNP-2 BASED ON WINDS AT 33 FT AND TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 245 AND 33 FT NEUTRAL 2.3.2d ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY FOR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES FOR WNP-2 BASED ON WINDS AT 33 FT AND TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 245 and 33 FT STABLE 2 ~ 3+ 2e ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY FOR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES FOR WNP-2 BASED ON WINDS AT 33 FT AND TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 245 AND 33 FT VERY STABLE
| |
| .I
| |
| : 2. 3-2f ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY FOR HANFORD STABILITY; CLASSES FOR WNP-2 BASED ON WINDS AT 33 FT AND TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 245 AND 33 FT STABILITY UNKNOWN 2 % 3 3a ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY OF WIND SPEED AND'DIRECTION FOR WNP-2 AT 7 FT FROM 4/74 TO 3/75 2.3-3b ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION FOR WNP-2 AT 33 FT FROM 4/74 TO 3/75 2.3-3c ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION FOR WNP-2 AT 245 FT FROM 4/74 TO 3/75
| |
| : 2. 3-4 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, APRIL 1974
| |
| : 2. 3-5 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, MAY 1974
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER LIST OF TABLES (continued)
| |
| Table No.
| |
| : 2. 3-6 MONTHLY SUMMARXES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, JUNE 1974 2~3 7 MONTHLY SUMMARXES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, JULY 1974 2.3-8 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, AUGUST 1974
| |
| : 2. 3-9 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP 2 g SEPTEMBER 1 9 7 4 2.3-10 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WXNDS FOR WNP-2, OCTOBER 1974 2~3 11 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, NOVEMBER 1974 2.3-12 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOXNT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, DECEMBER 1974
| |
| : 2. 3-13 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, JANUARY 1975
| |
| : 2. 3-14 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, FEBRUARY 1975
| |
| : 2. 3-15 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, MARCH 1975 2.3-16a-e SEASONAL PERCENT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED AND WIND DIRECTION AT HMS VS. ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY USING TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 3 AND 200 FOOT LEVELS AND WINDS AT 200 FEET FOR THE PERIOD 1955 1970 2.3-17 CLIMATOLOGICAL REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE YEAR USED IN THE DIFFUSION COMPUTATIONS 2.3-18 COMPARISON OF ONSITE AND LONGTERM DIFFUSION ELEMENTS
| |
| : 2. 3-19a JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES BY PASQUILL STABILITY GROUPS FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS. SPEED FROM 4/74 THROUGH 3/75 AT WPPSS 2 FOR 33 FT LEVEL (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN -2.1 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL DEGREES F PER 200 FT)
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER LIST OF TABLES (conte.nued)
| |
| Table No.
| |
| 2.3-19b (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN -1/9 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL -2.1 DEGREES F PER 200 FT) 2.3-19c (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN -1.6 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL -1.9 DEGREES F PER 200 FT) 2.3-196 (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN -0. 5 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL -1.6 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)
| |
| : 2. 3-19e (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS TAHN 1. 6 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL ~0.5 DEGREES F PER 200 FT) 2.3-19f (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN 4.4 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL 1.6 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)
| |
| : 2. 3-19g (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL 4.4 DEGREES F PER 200 r T)
| |
| : 2. 3-19h (TEMPERATURE CHANGE IN DEGREES F PER 200 FT UNKNOWN) 2.3-20 COMPARISON OF MONTHLY AVERAGE AND EXTREliES OF HOURLY AVERAGE AIR TEMPERATURES 2~3 21 COMPARISON OF MONTHLY AVERAGES OF WET BULB TEMPERATURES 2.3-22a FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF WET BULB VALUES A FUNCTION OF TXME OF DAY BASED ON WNP-2 SITE DATA 4/74 3/75
| |
| : 2. 3-22b 2 ~ 3 23 MONTHLY AVERAGES GF PSYCHROMETRIC DATA BASED ON PFRIOD OF RECORD 1950 1970
| |
| : 2. 3-24 MISCELLANEOUS SNOWFALL STATISTICS: 1946 1970 2.3-25 AVERAGE RETURN PERIOD (R) AND EXISTING RECORD (ER) FOR VARIOUS PRECIPITATION AMOUNTS AND INTENSITY DURING SPECIFIED TIME PERIODS AT HANFORD
| |
| : 2. 3-26a WNP-2 ONSITE JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WINDS FOR RAIN INTENSITY CLASSES, RAIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO .016 INCHES PER HOUR 2.3-26b RAIN INTENSlTY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.50 INCHES PER HOUR
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER LIST OF TABLES (continued)
| |
| Table No.
| |
| 2.3-. 26c RAIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO .100 INCHES PER HOUR 2.3-26d RAIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO .016 INCHES PER HOUR 2.3-26e RAIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO .500 INCHES PER HOUR 2~3 27 MONTHLY AND ANNUAL PREVAILING DXRECTIONS, AVERAGE SPEEDS, AND PEAK GUSTS: 1945 1970 AT HMS (50 FT DEVEL)
| |
| : 2. 3-28 MONTHLY MEANS OF DAILY MIXING HEIGHT AND AVERAGE WIND SPEED
| |
| : 2. 4-1 COLUMBIA RIVER MILE INDEX
| |
| : 2. 4-2 MEAN DISCHARGES IN CFS, OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER BELOW PRIEST RAPIDS DAM, WA 2.4-3 MONTHLY AVERAGE WATER TEMPERATURE ~ IN 0 C g AT RXCHLAND, WA 2.4-4 MONTHLY AVERAGE WATER TEMPERATURE, IN C, AT RICHLAND, WA
| |
| : 2. 4-5
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF WATER QUALITY DATA FOR THE COLUMBIA RIVER AT SELECTED SITES
| |
| : 2. 4-6 CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF COLUMBXA RIVER WATER AT 100 F 1970 (RESULTS IN PARTS/MILLION)
| |
| : 2. 4-7a
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF WATER QUALITY ANALYSES OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER BELOW PRIEST RAPIDS DAM (RIVER MILE 395) FOR 1972 WATER YEAR 2.4-7b 1972 WATER YEAR (cont.)
| |
| : 2. 4-7c 1972 WATER YEAR (cont.)
| |
| : 2. 4'-8 AVERAGE CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER AT PRIEST RAPIDS DAM, OCTOBER 1971 TO SEPTEMBER 1972
| |
| : 2. 4-9 DISCHARGE LINES TO COLUMBIA RIVER FROM HANFORD RESERVATION
| |
| : 2. 4-10 TOTAL ANNUAL DIRECT CHEMICAL DISCHARGE FROM HANFORD RESERVATION TO COLUMBIA RIVER Amendment 1 V3.i i May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER LIST OF TABLES (continued)
| |
| Table No.
| |
| : 2. 4-11 MAJOR GEOLOGIC UNITS XN THE HANFORD RESERVATXON AREA AND THEIR WATER BEARING PROPERTIES 2.4-12 AVERAGE FXFLD PERMEABILITY (FT/DAY) 3~3 1 PLANT WATER USE
| |
| : 3. 5-1 NOBLE GAS CONCEVTRATION IN THE REACTOR STEAM NUMERICAL VALUES CONCENTRATIONS IN PRINCIPAL FLUID
| |
| : 3. 5-2 AVERAGE NOBLE GAS RELEASE RATES FROM FUEL 3.5-3 CONCENTRATIONS OF HALOGENS 1N REACTOR COOLANT AT REACTOR VESSEL EXIT NOZZLES (pCi/gm) 3.5-4 CONCENTRATIONS OF FXSSION PRODUCTS XN REACTOR COOLANT AT REACTOR VESSEL EXXR NOZZLES (pCi/gm)
| |
| : 3. 5-5 CONCENTRATIONS OF CORROSION PRODUCTS IN REACTOR COOLANT AT REACTOR VESSEL EXXT NOZZLES (pCi/gm) 3.5-6 CONCENTRATIONS OF WATER ACTIVATION PRODUCTS iN REACTOR COOLANT AT REACTOR VESSEL EXIT NOZZLES (pCi/gm)
| |
| : 3. 5-7 RADIONUCLXDE CONCENTRATIONS XN FUEL POOL
| |
| : 3. 5-8 ESTIMATED RELEASES FROM DRYWELL AND REACTOR BUILDING VENTXLATXONS SYSTEMS 0
| |
| : 3. 5-9 ESTIMATED RELEASES FROM TURBiNE BUILDING VENTILATION 3.5-10 ESTIMATED RELEASES FROM RADWASTE BUILDING 3.5-11 ESTIMATED RELEASES FROM MECHANICAL VACUUM PUMP 3.5-12 ANNUAL RELEASES OF'ADIOACTIVE MATERIAL AS LIQUID 3.5-13 RADWASTE OPERATING EQUIPMENT DFSXGN BASIS 3.5-14 RADWASTE SYSTEM PROCESS PLOW DXAGRAM DATA (9 PAGES)
| |
| : 3. 5-15 EQUIPMENT DRAIN SUBSYSTEM SOURCES Amendmant 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER LIST OF TABLES (continued)
| |
| Table No.
| |
| 3.5-16 FLOOR DRAIN SUBSYSTEM SOURCES 3.5-17 CHEMICAL WASTE SUBSYSTEM SOURCES 3.5-18 OFF-GAS SYSTEM PROCESS DATA 3.5-19 RELEASE POINT DATA 3.5-20 NOBLE GAS RELEASE RATE INTO ATMOSPHERE FROM OFF-GAS SYSTEM
| |
| : 3. 5-21 ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS FROM BUILDING VENTILATION SYSTEMS, GLAND SEAL AND MECHANICAL VACUUM PUMPS 3.5-22 EXPECTED ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF SOLIDS 3.5-23 SIGNIFICANT ISOTOPE ACTXVXTY ON WET SOLIDS AFTER PROCESSING 3.5-24
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT MONITORING AND CONTROL POINTS 3.6-1 WATER COMPOSITION COLUMBIA RIVER, DEMINERALIZER WASTE, COOLING TOWER BLOWDOWN 3.8-1 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL MOVEMENT 3.9-1 500 KV AND 230 KV LINE ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS 5.1-1 TlMING OF SALMON ACTIVITIES IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER NEAR HANFORD FROM L.O. ROTHFUS TESTIMONY IN TPPSEC 71-1 HEARINGS (EXHIBIT 62) 5.1-2 ESTIMATED ANNUAL PERCENT PERSISTENCE OF ELEVATED VISIBLE PLUME LENGTHS
| |
| : 5. 1-3 ESTIMATED ANNUAL PERCENT PERSISTENCE OF ELEVATED VISIBLE PLUME LENGTHS WITH THE AIR TEMPERATURE 0 C OR LESS 5.1-4 MONTHLY ELEVATED VISIBLE PLUME LENGTHS PERCENT PERSISTENCES
| |
| : 5. 1-5 PREDICTED VISIBLE PLUME WXDTHS IN METERS AS A FUNCTION OF MONTH AND DOWNWIND DISTANCE
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER LIST OF TABLES (continued)
| |
| Table No.
| |
| 5.1-6
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF FOGGING IMPACT ESTIMATES 5.1-7 INCREASE IN RELATIVE HUMIDITY AT POINTS OF MAXIMUM POTENTIAL IMPACT
| |
| : 5. 2-1 RELEASE RATES AND CONCENTRATION OF RADIONUCLIDES IN THE LIQUID EFFLUENTS FROM WNP-2
| |
| : 5. 2-2 RELEASE RATES AND CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES XN THE AIRBORNE EFFLUENTS FROM WNP-2
| |
| : 5. 2-3 ANNUAL AVERAGE ATMOSPHERXC DILUTION FACTORS (X/Q')
| |
| 5.2-4 CONCENTRATIONS OF IMPORTANT RADIONUCLIDES IN VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA 5.2-5 ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR BIOTA DOSE ESTIMATED 5.2-6 ASSUMPTIONS USED IN ESTIMATING DOSES FROM THE LIQUID PATHWAY 5.2-7 ASSUMPTIONS USED IN ESTIMATING DOSES FROM THE GASEOUS PATHWAY
| |
| : 5. 2-8 ANNUAL DOSE RATES TO BIOTA ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE WNP-2 NUCLEAR PLANT (mrad/yr)
| |
| : 5. 2-9 ESTIMATED ANNUAL DOSES TO AN INDIVIDUALFROM THE LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENTS OF WNP-2 5.2-10 ESTIMATED ANNUAL DOSES TO AN INDIVIDUAL FROM THE LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENTS OF WNP-2, WNP-lg
| |
| ~ AND WNP-4 5.2-11 FRACTION OF RADIONUCLIDE PASSING THROUGH WATER TREATMENT PLANTS 5.2-12 ASSUMPTIONS FOR ESTIMATING DOSES FROM CROPS AND ANIMAL FODDER SUBJECT TO DEPOSITION OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS RELEASED BY THE PLANT
| |
| : 5. 2-13 CUMULATIVE POPULATION g ANNUAL POPULATION DOSE g FROM SUBMERSION IN AIR CONTAINING RADIONUCLIDES FROM THE WNP-2 AND COMBINED RELEASES OF WNP-2 AND WNP-1 AND WNP-4 X3.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER LIST OF TABLES continued Table No.
| |
| 5.2-15 ESTIMATED ANNUAL POPULATION DOSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO WNP-2 AND COMBINED RADIONUCLIDE RELEASES OF WNP-1, WNP-2 and WNP-4 5.3-1 MAXIMUM POTENTIAL CHANGE IN COLUMBIA RIVER WATER QUALITY RESULTING FROM WNP-2 CHEMICAL DISCHARGES 5.8-1 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF DISMANTLING AND DECOMMISSIONING COSTS 6.1-1 MASS SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF DRIFT DROPLETS 6.1-2 FISH SAMPLING FREQUENCY BY STATION AND METHOD
| |
| '6.1-3 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MiONITORING PROGRAM 6.1-4 KEY FOR FIGURE 6.1-3 6.1-5 MAXIMUM VALUES FOR THE LOWER LIMIT OF DETECTION (LLD) 6.2-1 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE SCHEDULE-1979 6.3-2 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE NETWORK WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION, JUNE 1978 7.1-1 CLASSIFICATION OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS AND OCCURRENCES 7012 RADIATION EXPOSURE
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| : 7. 1-3 TABLE OF EVENT PROBABILITIES 7.1-4 SOME U.S. ACCIDENTAL DEATH STATISTICS FOR 1971 8.1-1 ELECTRIC POWER REQUIREMENTS BY MAJOR CONSUMER CATEGORIES IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST 8.2-1 COST COMPONENTS OF WNP-2 8.2-2 INFORMATION REQUESTED BY NRC 8.2-3 ESTIMATED COST OF ELECTRICITY FROM WNP-2 8.2-4 POPULATION DATA FOR THE TRI-CITY AREA X11 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER LIST OF TABLES (continued)
| |
| Table No.
| |
| : 8. 2-5 PROJECTED SHORT-TERM POPULATION GROWTH IN TRI-CITY AREA
| |
| : 8. 2-6
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF REGIONAL GROWTH INDICATORS 10.1-1 CAPITALIZED TOWER ENERGY CONSUMPTION 10.1-2 COST CAMPARISON OF MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS 10.2-1 INTAKE SCHEMES DIFFERENTIAL COST COMPARISON 10.2-2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE INTAKE SYSTEMS 10.9-1 ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION ROUTES 12.1-1 PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED FOR PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
| |
| ~Fi use No.
| |
| 1.1-1 ESTIMATED VERSUS ACTUAL WINTER FIRM PEAK LOADS PNW-WEST GROUP AREA 1.1-2 ESTIMATED VERSUS ACTUAL ANNUAL AVERAGE FIRM LOADS PNW-WEST GROUP AREA 1.1-3 U.S. 5 PNW (WEST GROUP AREA) PEAK LOADS 1.1-4 ELECTRIC ENERGY RE(UIREMENTS BY MAJOR CONSUMER CATEGORIES PACIFIC NORTHWEST (WEST GROUP AREA) 1.1-5 FACTORS CAUSING INCREASE IN ENERGY SALES TO DOMESTIC CONSUMERS IN WEST GROUP OF PNW 1950-1973 1.1-6 WEST GROUP AREA LOAD CRITICAL WATER 1981-1982 1.1-7 ESTIMATED CAPACITY RESERVES 1977-1987 2 1.1-8 ESTIMATED ENERGY DEFICITS 1978-1987 201-1 SITE LOCATION MAP 2.1-2 HANFORD RESERVATION BOUNDARY MAP 2.1-3 SITE PLAN 2.1-4 SITE PLOT PLAN 2.1-5 HANFORD RESERVATION ROAD SYSTEM 2.1-6 'ANFORD RESERVATION RAILROAD SYSTEM 2.1-7 PROJECT AREA MAP - 10 MILE RADIUS 2.1-8 PROJECT AREA MAP - 50 MILE RADIUS 2.1-9 DISTRIBUTION OF TRANSIENT POPULATION WITHIN 10 MILES OF SITE 2.1-10 DELETED 2.1-11 DELETED 2.1-12 DELETED X1V Amendment 5 July 1981
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS continued
| |
| ~Fi ure No.
| |
| 2.1-13 DELETED 2.1-14 DELETED 2.1-15 DELETED 2.1-16 DELETED 2.1-17 DELETED 2.1-18 DELETED 2.1-19 DELETED 2.1-20 DELETED 2.2-'1 DISTRIBUTION Of MAJOR PLANT COMMUNITIES (VEGATATION TYPES)
| |
| ON THE ERDA HANFORD RESERVATION, BENTON COUNTY, WA 2.2-2 FOOD-WEB OF COLUMBIA RIVER 2.2-3 SEASONAL FLUCTUATION OF PLANKTON BIOMASS 2.2-4 SEASONAL FLUCTUATION OF NET PRODUCTION RATE OF PERIPHYTON 2.2-5 TIMING OF UPSTREAM MIGRATIONS IN THE LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER 2.3-1 WIND ROSE FOR WNP-2 FOR 4-74 TO 3-75 AT THE 7 FT LEVEL 203-2 WIND ROSE FOR WNP-2 FOR 4-74 TO 3-75 AT THE 33 FT LEVEL 2~3 3 WIND ROSE FOR WNP-2 FOR 4-74 TO 3-75 AT THE 245 FT LEVEL" XV Amendment 5 July 1981
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (continued)
| |
| Fi ure No.
| |
| 2.3-4 WIND ROSES FOR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES AT WNP-2 FOR 4-74 TO 3-75 AT THE 33 FT LEVEL .
| |
| 2.3-5 WIND ROSE AS A FUNCTION OF HANFORD STABILITY AND FOR ALL STABILITIES OF HMS BASED ON WINDS AT 200 FT AND AIR TEMPERATURE STABXLITIES BETWEEN 3 FT AND 200 FT FOR THE PERIOD 1955 THROUGH 1970
| |
| : 2. 3-6 SURFACE WIND ROSES FOR VARIOUS LOCATIONS ON AND SURROUNDING THE HANFORD SITE BASED ON FIVE-YEAR AVERAGES (1952-1956). SPEEDS ARE GIVEN IN MILES PER HOUR 2~ 3 7 MONTHLY HOURLY AVERAGES OF TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY
| |
| : 2. 3-8 MONTHLY HOURLY AVERAGES OF TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMXDITY
| |
| : 2. 3-9 MONTHLY HOURLY AVERAGES OF TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY 2.3-10 ANNUAL HOURLY AVERAGE OF TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY 2 ~ 3 11 AVERAGE MONTHLY PRECIPITATXON AMOUNTS BASED ON THE PERIOD 1912-1970 AT HMS
| |
| : 2. 3-12 RAINFALL INTENS ITYi DURATIONi AND FREQUENCY BASED ON THE PERIOD 1947-1969 AT HMS 2 ~ 3 13 PEAK WIND GUST RETURN PROBABXLZTY DIAGRAM AT HMS
| |
| : 2. 4-1 UPPER AND MIDDLE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN
| |
| : 2. 4-2 DISCHARGE DURATION CURVES OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER BELOW PRIEST RAPIDS DAM, WA
| |
| : 2. 4-3 FREQUENCY CURVE OF ANNUAL MOMENTARY PEAK FLOWS FOR THE COLUMBIA RIVER BELOW PRIEST RAPIDS DAM, WA
| |
| : 2. 4-4 FREQUENCY CURVES OF HIGH AND LOW FLOWS FOR THE COLUMBIA RIVER BELOW PRIEST RAPIDS DAMg WA
| |
| : 2. 4-5 CROSS SECTIONS OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER IN THE PLANT VICINITY
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS cont>.nued)
| |
| Fi ure No.
| |
| : 2. 4-6 LOCATION OF INTAKE AND DISCHARGE LXNES WNP 1 g WNP-4 AND WNP-2
| |
| : 2. 4-7 ELEVATION CONTOURS OF THE RIVER BOTTOM AT THE WNP-2 DISCHARGE (FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL)
| |
| : 2. 4-8 RXVER WATER SURFACE PROFILES FOR SEVERAL FLOW DISCHARGES IN THE VICINITY OF THE PLANT SITE
| |
| : 2. 4-9 AVERAGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURE COMPARISON FOR I
| |
| PRIEST RAP DS DAM RICHLAND~ FOR 1 0 YEAR PERIOD 1965-1974
| |
| : 2. 4-10 COMPUTED LONG TERM TEMPERATURE ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER AT ROCK ISLAND DAM (1938-1072)
| |
| : 2. 4-11 ONE HOUR DURATION FREQUENCY CURVE OF HXGH RIVER WATER TEMPERATURE IN THE VICXNITY OF THE PROJECT SXTE
| |
| : 2. 4-12 TWENTY-FOUR HOUR DURATION FREQUENCY CURVE OF HIGH RIVER WATER TEMPERATURE IN THE VICINITY OF THE PLANT SITE
| |
| : 2. 4-13 SEVEN DAY DURATION FREQUENCY CURVE OF HXGH RIVER WATER TEMPERATURE IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE 2.14-14 SIMPLIFIED GEOLOGICAL CROSS SECTXON OF THE HANFORD RESERVATIONS WASHINGTON 2.4-15 GROUNDWATER CONTOURS AND LOCATIONS OF WELLS FOR THE HANFORD RESERVATION g WASHINGTON g SEPT 19 7 3
| |
| : 2. 4-16 POINTS OF GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWAL XN THE VICINITY OF WNP-2
| |
| !
| |
| : 3. 1-1 WNP-2 PLANT SITE 3 ~ 1 2 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
| |
| : 3. 1-3 MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLZNG TOWER ELEVATION
| |
| : 3. 1-4 MAKE-UP WATER PUMPHOUSE ELEVATION
| |
| : 3. 1-5 WNP-2 MAKE-UP WATER PUMP HOUSE 3.1-6 WNP-2 EFFLUENT RELEASE POINTS Xvi1 Amendment 3 January 1979
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER L1ST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (continued)
| |
| Fi ure No.
| |
| 3~2 1 CORE ARRANGEMENT 3~2 2 TYPICAL CORE CELL 3~2 3 FUEL ASSEMBLY ENRICHMENT DISTRIBUTION 3.2-4 STEAM AND RECIRCULATION WATER FLOW PATHS 3.2-5 GE REACTOR SYSTEM HEAT BALANCE FOR RATED POWER 3.2-6 DIRECT CYCLE REACTOR AND TURBINE SYSTEM 3~2 7 NET PLANT HEAT RATE VARIATIONS VS. TURBINE BACK PRESSURE 3~3 1 PLANT SYSTEMS WATER USE DIAGRAM
| |
| : 3. 4-1 MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS PLOT PLAN
| |
| : 3. 4-2 TOWER CENTER SECTION THRU FILL 3.4-3 COOLING TOWER PERFORMANCE CURVE 3.4-4 MONTHLY AVERAGE FLOW RATES AND TEMPERATURES
| |
| : 3. 4-5 INTAKE SYSTEM PLAN AND PROFILE
| |
| '3. 4-6 MAKE-UP WATER PUMPHOUSE PLAN AND SECTIONS
| |
| : 3. 4-7 PERFORATED INTAKE PLAN AND SECTIONS
| |
| : 3. 4-8 PERFORATED PIPE INTAKE DISTANCE VS. INTAKE FLOW VELOCITIES
| |
| \
| |
| : 3. 4-9 PERFORATED PIPE INTAKE VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION 3/8" AWAY FROM SCREEN SURFACE
| |
| : 3. 4-10 RECTANGULAR SLOT DISCHARGE
| |
| : 3. 5-1 FLOW DIAGRAM PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM LIQUID
| |
| : 3. 5-2 FLOW DIAGRAM RADIOACTIVE WASTE SYSTEM EQUIPMENT PROCESSING XVi1.i
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS continued
| |
| ~Fi ure No.
| |
| 3.5-3 FLOW DIAGRAM RADIOACTIVE WASTE SYSTEM FLOOR DRAIN PROCESSING
| |
| : 3. 5-4 FLOW DIAGRAM CHEMICAL WASTE PROCESSING'LOW
| |
| : 3. 5-5 DIAGRAM PROCESS OFF-GAS SYSTEM LOW TEMPERATURE N-67-1020
| |
| : 3. 5-6 FLOW DIAGRAM OFF-GAS PROCESSING SYSTEM RADWASTE BUILDING 3.5-7 FLOW DIAGRAM OFF-GAS PROCESSING TURBINE BUILDING 3.5-8 FLOW DIAGRAM HVAC-O.G. CHARCOAL ADSORBER VAULT RADWASTE BUILDING 3.5-9 FLOW'IAGRAM HEATING 5 VENTILATION SYSTEM REACTOR BUILDING l
| |
| 3.5-10 fLOW DIAGRAM RADWASTE BUILDING HEATING AND VENTILATION SYSTEM 3.5-11 FLOW DIAGRAM HEATING 5 VENTILATION SYSTEM TURBINE BUILDING 3.5-12 FLOW DIAGRAM RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL SOLID HANDLING 3.5-13 FLOW DIAGRAM FUEL POOL COOLING AND CLEANUP SYSTEM 307 1 SANITARY WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM 3.9-1 500 KV, 230 KV, 115 KV POWER LAYOUT 3.9-2 CONFIGURATIONS OF BPA TRANSMISSION TOWERS 3.9-3 230 KV RIGHT-OF-WAY DETAIL MAP 3.9-4 BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION'S H. J. ASHE SUBSTATION 4.1-1 CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| 4.1-2 WNP-2 PERSONNEL ESTIMATE 5.1-1 BLOWDOWN PLUME CENTERLINE TEMPERATURES Xix Amendment 5 July 1981
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS continued
| |
| ~Fi use No.
| |
| 5.1-2 PLAN VIEW OF WNP-2 AND WNP-1/4 BLOWDOWN PLUME ISOTHERMS 5.1-3 CROSS-SECTION OF WNP-2 BLOWDOWN PLUME ISOTHERMS 5.1-4 DELETED 5.1-5 DELETED 5.1-6 DELETED 5.1-7 DELETED 5.1-8 DELETED 5.1-9
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF TEMPERATURE EXPOSURE AND THERMAL TOLERANCE OF JUVENILE SALMONIDS 5.1-10 EQUILIBRIUM LOSS AND DEATH TIMES AT VARIOUS TEMPERATURES FOR JUVENILE CHINOOK SALMON R. E. NAKATANI, EXHIBIT 49, TPPSEC 71-1 hear ing 5.1-11 SALT DEPOSITION PATTERNS OUT TO 0.5 MILE (lb/acre/yr) 5.1-12 SALT DEPOSITION PATTERNS OUT TO 6.9 MILE (lb/acre/yr) 5.2-1 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS FOR ORGANISMS OTHER THAN MAN 5.2-2 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS TO MAN 6.1-1 AQUATIC BIOTA AND WATER QUALITY SAMPLING STATIONS NEAR WNP-1, 2, AND 4 6.1-2 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY STUDY SITES IN THE VICINITY OF WNP-2 6.1-3 RADIOLOGICAL SAMPLE STATION LOCATIONS 6.1-4 PERCENT CANOPY COVER OF HERBS IN VICINITY OF WNP-2 6.1-5 AVERAGE HERB PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY IN VICINITY OF WNP-2 XX Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS continued
| |
| ~Fi ure No.
| |
| 6.3-1 HANFORD EVIRONMENTAL AIR SAMPLING LOCATIONS 14 6.3-2 RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING STATIONS AT HANFORD OPERATED BY DOE i1 6.3-3 STATEWIDE SAMPLING LOCATIONS 10.2-1 MODIFIED CONVENTIONAL INTAKE PI AN AND SECTION 10.2-2 MODIFIED CONVENTIONAL INTAKE GENERAL ARRANGEMENT PLAN 10.2-3 INFILTRATION BED INTAKE GENERAL ARRANGEMENT PLAN 10.2-4 INFILITRATION BED INTAKE PLAN AND SECTIONS 10.2-5 PERFORATED PIPE INTAKE IN OFF-RIVER CHANNEL 10.9-1 OVERALL MAP OF ROUTES "A" AND "B" 10.9-2 RIGHT-OF-WAY DETAIL MAP ROUTE "A" 10.9-3 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF LAND CROSSED BY TRANSMISSION LINES 10.9-4 LAND USE HANFORD RESERVATION 10.9-5 RIGHT-OF-WAY DETAIL MAP ROUTE "B" Amendment 4 XX1 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP~2 ER CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY 1.0 DEFINITION In order to satisfy power needs of the Pacific Northwest.
| |
| region, a nuclear electric generating facility has been proposed to be operated in the State of Washington'by the Washington Public Power Supply System (" Supply System" ).
| |
| The proposed nuclear electric generating project, Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear, Project No. 2 (WNP-2) rated at 1,100 MWe, is located on a site within the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford Reservation in Benton County, Washington, approximately 12 miles north of the city of Richland, Washington.
| |
| 1.0.1 The Su ly S stem The Supply System is a joint operating agency formed under Chapter 43.52 of the Revised Code of Washington. The Supply System was originally formed in 1957. As a joint operating agency, the Supply System is legally empowered "to generate, produce, transmit, transfer, exchange or sell electric energy and to enter into contracts for any or all such purposes." (RCW 43.52.300) The Supply System is specif-icatlly authorized to issue revenue bonds to finance the construction of projects and facilities undertaken by it.
| |
| The management and control of the Supply System is vested in a Board of Directors composed of a representative of each of its members. The members of the Supply System have a pre-ference right to purchase all the energy generated by the Supply System. A joint operating agency may not acquire or operate distribution properties, nor does taxing authority of any kind. The Supply it have a general System is specifi-cally authorized to make contracts relating to the purchase, sale, interchange 'or wheeling of power with the Government of the United States or any agency thereof, or with any municipal corporation or public utility within or outside the State of Washington.
| |
| The business of the Supply System is conducted in public meetings of the Board of Directors and all actions taken are by resolution or motion of the Board of Directors, and all records and minutes are public pursuant, to the laws of the State of Washington. An Executive Committee composed of 7 members administers the business of the Supply System be'tween regular meetings of the Board of Directors. A Managing
| |
| : 1. 0-1 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Director, appointed by the Board of Directors, is the chief executive officer of the Supply System and is authorized to administer the business of the Supply System pursuant to rules, resolutions and policies promulgated by the Board of Directors. A joint operating agency such as the Supply System must obtain the approval of legislative bodies of a majority of its members prior to undertaking any project.
| |
| All bonds or notes issued by the Supply System must be sold at public bidding and all contracts over a stipulated amount.
| |
| are required to be entered into under public biding proce-dures. The Supply System has no authority to impose any debt or financial obligation on the State of Washington or any of its political subdivisions, including its members.
| |
| The authority granted to the Supply System by statute applies equally to the generation of electricity by "water power, by steam power, by nuclear power or by any other means whatsoever" (RCW 43.52.260).
| |
| The Supply System, whose membership is made up of 19 opera-ting public utility districts and the municipal electrical systems of Richland, Seattle, and Tacoma, all located in the State of Washington, has its principal office in Richland, Washington. It has the power of eminent domain, but is specifically precluded from the condemnation of any plants, works or facilities owned and operated by any city, public utility district or privately-owned electric utility. The Supply System will operate WNP-2 and have continuing respon-sibility for its maintenance.
| |
| The Supply System owns and operates the Packwood Lake Hydro-Electric Project with a nameplate rating of 27,500-KWA. It also owns and operates an 860,000 kilowatt electric genera-ting plant and associated facilities (the "Hanford Generating Project" ) located on the Hanford Reservation. Steam is provided from the New Production Reactor ("NPR"), owned and operated by the United States Department of Energy (DOE).
| |
| DOE has recently negotiated a contract with the Supply System to supply steam from the NPR until July 1983. The Supply System is building two other nuclear electric generating plants on the Hanford Reservation;- such facilities are known as the Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Project No. 1 (WNP-1) and the Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Project, No. 4 (WNP-4). In addition, two nuclear electric generating plants, Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Project No. 3 (WNP-3) and Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Project No. 5 (WNP-5) are under construction about 16 miles east of Aberdeen in Grays Harbor County, Washington.
| |
| 1.0-2 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 1.0.2 WNP-2 WNP-2 ("the Project" ), is being undertaken pursuant to the Hydro-Thermal Power Program described, in Section 1.1 developed jointly by the util'ities of the Pacific Northwest and BPA.
| |
| The Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee ("PNUCC")
| |
| represents the entities serving the loads of the West Group area of the Northwest Power Pool and assembles the loads and resources forecasts of the individual utilities into an ll-year forecast, known as the West Group Forecast past issues of which are on file with the Federal Power Commission (FPC). The forecast includes loads and resources for Northern Idaho, Washington, Oregon (except for the southeastern part of the state), a portion of Northern California, the loads and resources of Pacific Power and Light Company and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) in Western Montana, the BPA loads and the United States Bureau of Reclamation ("USBR") resources in Southern Idaho. PNUCC also expands the forecast into a 20-year planning document titled, "Long-Range Projection of Power Loads and Resources for Thermal Planning West Group Area". Except for minor corrections and additions to the West, Group forecast data, the first 11-year data of the Long-Range Projection is'he same as the West Group Forecast.
| |
| In its planning, PNUCC seeks to:
| |
| a) Optimize available resources; b) Reduce reserves required for adequate system reliability by providing for the inter-utility sharing of reserve, requirements; and c) Improve service and reliability of the region's inter-connected system.
| |
| The Projects have been timed, sized and located to economi-cally meet regional power requirements consistent with the basic philosophy of the Hydro-Thermal Power Program, of contributing to the growth and stability of the Pacific Northwest. The basic tenets of this philosophy are to:
| |
| a) Continue to preserve the environmental and natural beauties of the Northwest.
| |
| b) Make efficient and economic use of the federal regional transmission system.
| |
| c) Obtain the economics of scale from large thermal gen-erating plants.
| |
| : 1. 0-3
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER d) Coordinate the required large thermal generating with existing Pacific Northwest hydro plants, bothplants federal and non-federal, and with future peaking gen-rating units (both hydro-electric and combustion turbine),
| |
| to achieve an economical, reliable power supply to meet the electric power requirements of the Pacific Northwest.
| |
| WNP-2 will be constructed and operated by the Supply System as part of Phase 1 of the Hydro-Thermal Power Program, a program designed'o meet the anticipated needs for power in the Pacific Northwest.
| |
| Ninety-four consumer-owned utilities in the Pacific Northwest will participate in WNP-2. The public agency participants, all of which are statutory preference customers of BPA, currently obtain all or part of their power supply and other services from BPA. Each participant's share of annual costs of plant operation will be "net-billed" against the billings made by BPA to the participant on a monthly basis under its power sales and other contracts. Under the net billing arrangement, each participating utility contracts with the Supply System to purchase a portion of the WNP-2 electrical output and in turn sells this electricity to BPA for distri-bution over its regional transmission grid system. Xn payment for this power, BPA credits the amounts paid by each partici-pant to the Supply System against amounts the participant owes BPA for power purchased and other services.
| |
| Since the participant's payments to the Supply System will be net billed, the cost of their shares of the power pro-duced by WNP-2 will be borne by BPA customers. BPA has assured .Congress that "any costs or losses to Bonneville under these agreements will be borne by all Bonneville ratepayers through rate adjustments, if necessary".
| |
| : 1. 0-4
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 1.1 NEED FOR POWER Until the present decade, the Pacific Northwest has relied on hydro-generation for nearly all of its electric energy requirements. Future hydro-developments in the Pacific Northwest, however, will consist largely of the installation of peaking generation because nearly all the economically feasible regional hydro sites have been developed. The integration of new thermal generating resources with the hydro resources of the Northwest. to maximize reliability has been a goal of the region's power planning for many years.
| |
| Utilities of the region commenced practicing coordination establish-on a voluntary basis more than 30 years ago by the ment of the Northwest Power Pool (NWPP).
| |
| In 1964, 14 utilities and three federal entities formalized this coordination in the area by signing the long-term Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement which expires in 2003, a copy of which is on file with the Federal Power Commission (FPC). To meet the Northwest's firm energy requirements, five Northwest investor-owned utilities, 104 consumer-owned agencies, the Supply System and BPA, acting in concert as the Joint Power Planning Council (" The Council" ),
| |
| in 1968 conceived the Hydro-Thermal Power Program. The Hydro-Thermal Power Program was approved by the Secretary of the Interior on October 22, 1968, and the federal portion of the program was approved through 1981 by the Congressional enactment of the Public Works Appropriation Act of 1971.
| |
| Installation schedules were established for seven large
| |
| ~
| |
| thermal plants needed in addition to the probable hydro-generation installation to supply the requirements of the region through the operating year 1981-1982. (Phase 1 of the Hydro-Thermal Power Program.)
| |
| A review of load and resource forecasts for the region was undertaken in mid-1973 to reassess the resource requirements of the region because of slippage in the federal hydro installation schedule, the inability of the large Centralia Thermal Project to reach rated capacity because of environ-mental considerations, the energy crisis, and the then impending shutdown of United States Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) NPR which furnishes steam to the Hanford Generating Project. Consideration was given in the review .to the effect on the use of electrical energy to be expected from a continuing educational program for the efficient use of all types of energy. The revised forecast indicated a continuing deficiency of both capacity and energy.
| |
| 1.1-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Because of the projected resource deficiency, Phase 2 of the Hydro-Thermal Power Program was formulated. It contains a schedule of thermal plant installations to eliminate, as rapidly as possible, the forecasted resource deficiencies.
| |
| This installation schedule (date,,of commercial operation) extends through 1985. Recently the PNUCC has taken over the functions of the Joint Power Planning Council and the Council has become inactive.
| |
| The Supply System serves the region as a bulk power supplier for the numerous consumer-owned utilities throughout the region. As such, facilities built by the Supply System can realistically be considered as regional resources.
| |
| 1.1.1 Load Characteristics The characteristics of both the Pacific Northwest loads and the electrical power supply system have developed together and are relatively unique within the United States. Most of the regional power is presently being generated at hydro-electric projects, many of which are owned by the federal government. Much of the power flows to the distributing utilities over Bonneville Power Administration transmission lines. Customers in the area, other than industrial direct service customers of BPA, are served by either investor-owned utilities, public utility districts, municipal systems, or cooperative rural electrification systems. Due to the region's vast hydro-electric resources electrical energy costs in the Pacific Northwest have been quite low, leading to high per capita consumption of electrical energy. As a consequence, per capita use of other forms of energy are less than they might otherwise have been for some industrial and commercial uses and for such residential uses as cooking, water heating, and space heating. Some electrical-energy-intensive industry has also developed in the region.
| |
| The electrical supply resource of the region is entering a transition period sin'ce the major part of the economically attractive energy potential obtainable from hydro-electric projects has already been developed. Because demand fluctu-ates on a daily, weekly, and annual basis, additional capa-city is being installed at existing hydro projects to shape energy to load requirements. The region foresees greater usage of hydro resources for peaking, with thermal resources such as WNF-2 operating as baseload units at high plant fac-tors except for times when sufficient water supply is avail-able to displace thermal output.
| |
| To properly assess the need for the Project, consideration must be given to the unique features of the power supply in the Pacific Northwest. Although hydro capability in the area is abundant, firm energy and dependable peaking capacity, produced from existing regional hydro resources, are limited
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER not only by installed machine capacity but also by usable water storage volume available to the region. Existing hydro projects in the West Group area have nearly exhausted the sites that can be developed on an economical and environ-mentally acceptable basis. Most additional developments that can meet these conditions are either under construction or in firm planning stages with substantial amounts of money committed for planning and engineering. These additional projects have been included in load forecasts made by the Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee (PNUCC).
| |
| The West Group utilities have established a "critical period" of adverse water conditions to be used in both planning and operations. Adverse stream flows of historical record, coupled with installed machine capability and storage volume usable for power production, determine the length of such critical period. By definition, under a repeat, of the most adverse stream flows of historical record, no water is spilled past generating facilities except for water spilled past existing run-of-the-river facilities that are incapable of fully utilizing such adverse flows. Although additional dependable capacity, needed to shape energy to load require-ments, can be added to the coordinated system by installing additional generators at existing hydro projects, only a small amount of additional firm energy can be produced by such additions. As previously stated, there is very little potential in the West Group area for additional reservoir volume required to increase firm energy production. For this reason, the area is required to construct base load thermal plants to supply the forecasted energy requirements of the area and to add hydro capacity to shape such thermal energy production to load requirements.
| |
| 1.1.1.1 Utilit Or anizations of the Area Prior to 1940, few high-voltage inter-tie transmission facilities existed between utilities in the Pacific North-west. Existing tielines were used primarily for emergency purposes. Very little benefit was derived from inter-utility or intra-regional diversity. Because were of isolated system operation, both firm and nonfirm power not totally available to serve loads of the area.
| |
| Early in the 1940's, war-related industries in the area were rapidly increasing their power requirements on the utilities.
| |
| At the urging of the Federal War Production Board, the utilities stepped up construction and installation of gen-erating facilities and joined together to coordinate the power output of all installed facilities. Bonneville Power Administration had been formed by an act of Congress in 1937 and was given authority to construct transmission facilities 1.1-3
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER in order to market federal power produced by projects in the area built by the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. These BPA lines formed a transmission network interconnecting most of the utilities in the area and made power from all the major power projects in the Pacific Northwest available on an areawide basis. Because of this transmission network, the area's utilities were able to coordinate resources.
| |
| a) The Northwest Power Pool (NWPP)
| |
| The NWPP was formed by the operating management of the generating utilities in the Pacific Northwest for the purpose of coordinating the operation of the hydro and thermal resources of the area in order to optimize, to the extent possible, the availability of firm power to serve the loads of the area. Coordinated operation also provided a means:
| |
| : 1) Of resolving problems of interconnected operation of utility systems;
| |
| : 2) Of utilizing to the greatest advantage possible nonfirm power in the area; and
| |
| : 3) Of reducing required reserves to a minimum by pooled use of such reserves.
| |
| Membership in the NWPP includes consumer- and investor-owned generating utilities, BPA, the Corps of Engineers the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and two Canadian utilities. Member utilities in the United States serve loads in the states of Montana, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Washington, Oregon and Northern California.
| |
| In order to accomplish the objectives of pooling, the NWPP employed a staff of engineers, known as the Coordi-nating Group, to make .studies and forecasts, on a short-term basis, necessary to best utilize the pooled resources to serve the loads of the area. A "critical period" concept was developed. Reservoir regulation studies are made on a coordinated system basis and reservoir operating rule curves are established each year for each reservoir, such that with a repeat of the most adverse water conditions of history, firm loads of the area can be carried. Loads above the critical period firm resource capability are relegated to a nonfirm or interruptible basis.
| |
| Voluntary coordiantion worked to the advantage of both the utilities and industry and therefore was continued after the war ended.
| |
| : 1. 1-4
| |
| | |
| y'r; One ggj the /actors.~ contri!buting- tox the! success .'oV NWPP rroq~r.g,was ghat eachr.member,!@titty-'unai.ntai:ne&;:itmfirrdepyndent ut!i.3,<ty>wesponsibilw<y >in; plan'ningrranduopeza~ng<d.ts
| |
| . a~ '!;g r!cpy>temi but;, work'ed !throu'gh the> pool;. <o,.ccooMimhtexRhese functions with other utilities to the best advantage of
| |
| -q -;-'the~"region!'. bgqo ja 'y.>.'Jr,w ),o <ypr,~jLg'p j bg jog:jrroo eAT efcfFbrreqeb crt.3 aces'e< r:.i r>na J<~~;,rroo boo3..; aebivoxq ass.ov b)o '-q.Paci-f i,cr [Nprthyes4!gtilitiesy;Conference~!Commh.ithaca'o jan) F) PNUOC)err~ .~r,r'. xov r,51 r..i.dn;v j:o3 erf t Ero aloe j.oxq xswoq a&.i 69 i>> bBDL!rrJ 9ia j" 'Izing.f i"I ~ r,f o9q3 +DE 9'x~ BfIT BG:)698 ear.exorr 5'heirNWPPp deyoteazd.t s'f for'<'sr primary~
| |
| planning andr xesou'rce>rcoordi~Irh'tion"anted:o)xurzfentr~
| |
| ~
| |
| t.o>>shdrtf~rm operating problems. Management soon recognized the e s,belief iks=Chatj wj re!-af folded .'tb~ztififties'r Chreugh=. the o:.ef fo'xmas;oX <he'JlWPP~:and) deci.de'd yto'-" e~andprthosr <bene-v~i Xwtsz>hxough< coordiinaCion!;Gfx.-1ong-term~~1!anningkdrer
| |
| !re b.constructionrragd~ installabi~o'nr of:- genera&ng<aciibities.
| |
| r )PNUCCr. whsoror,ganized;i,.a~lso <on:>arolunka~i basi's,ego rr.ac'complish! Qd.s3 !purpose.;.ro<PNUCClri~sj ran>sinf ormazd-rasso-brrs iciaILi,onr o5;:p'ublicarhnd~:p'rd:vate ptil>ties<<i'n <her6'.aMif ic
| |
| -err Northwest.art!Membership~ w'sPropen-., ito ralj. nxti M~esx6g the Pacific Northwest but many<!off ther."smalrU'eruxCtKMCH>s depend upon BPA to represent them. PNUCC established a
| |
| -z8 oadsz.'and~ Resourcesf.S'ubcommittee;.andf=delhgakedJ<te3 theknesponsibiG.ityiXokr,.ass'embl+ng>!trhevc3:eadss andamesources it rrsv<f oxOcast:srranada- annual3~y> by>;trhe-,uti,li<yranembarsf and ydg.carhpi:lnhgi.them 4ntor~ai:Jai.ngM! forecahti daeurrfen~<58%hen ypxe!PJlUCCG wasi Xormed+,n.lea6f 'time !for.rrims'ta11atiox& dM~dro-
| |
| .generah3.onrlwa,s:approxiina<e1y) faur,~year's=evZorecasd=s p>wareSana6e Cor can -lL-'.ye'arl>.pa'ri.od>>beyond. themcuRzent, q.operating~ryeam;to prov>der'; adequh4ey trims fos .p3.hnhing y~ -'.andy!insMMaMon.>:.o5>.'addi tiona3!3.yi >regui~ed Iresogdce s .
| |
| dao;rr o0 yxr aaeo=~rr ac~,aziarif air/..few beq~rfe '~eve!re brrs By 1968 lead time foxy,in''al;lani'on'o& geneiaOingiXaci-lities had increased to about 10 years, necessitating 9(f-thet exphnsion. o f,<her!XesQ;Groupi,Karecast.: tcqraarldhg-geicfoxecastr;covering~!rloads .andi.probablelzesburces 9ff9 !'r f orI'<an~!additional 9.'-,yean;.period.";.:! a,Thks >.eexpandedhdore-rr;ca'st~ <a<1'hd,dQ'Long;."Range'rod ection a& Pmwexe Loads ad so!and>Eesources~ Sorq Therma!ld> 1 arming "a andPd.sn:comindnly rekergedsito ass<the~ !."Bluei BookAM.because't.ofs'the:f;do3.or o f 3o:fat!s coOer:-ivpepnoD .sinxo'liLsD rri a9aoo nojdovbo~q 6Lfr'go~ f I,s ) od bfoa rr'so P !r5 Bsw:f!reh"6j.D>> SrlH !rsxbs!r63 hindi Columbia> Storages Power@Exchange elf'r<c3>zoiCanadianiZrea~
| |
| erfC ripuoxri3 sirr~o3..ilc~DQo ~tr ~8 ader o3 bedjLmr!roe asw
| |
| -9 Jdl.On3 Janu'axys3.7g!i.l9'63.,I.the ."Treater Between RheI: Usted
| |
| .!rw St'a4esg of"hmerk0a .and!..Canada'elating <to the"= Cooperative Development of the Water Resources of the Columbia River Basin" (" Canadian Treaty" ) was signed by the United States and Canada. Among other things, this
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER treaty and the notes exchanged pursuant to the treaty provided for the construction, maintenance and operation by Canada of three dams and storage reservoirs in British Columbia on the Columbia River and its tributaries.
| |
| The controlled release of water stored in those reser-voirs provides flood control and increases the dependable capacity and.usable energy produced at hydro-electric power projects on the Columbia River in the United States. The treaty specifies that the United States and Canada are each entitled to one-half of this increase of dependable capacity and usable energy.
| |
| Canada offered to sell its share of the Treaty Benefits to a single entity in the United States in order to obtain money to construct the dams. No single entity with the ability to finance such a purchase existed in the Pacific Northwest so utility management formed a non-profit-no-stock corporation called the Canadian Storage Power (CSPE) to raise the capital required and purchase the Canadian entitlement to the treaty 'bene-fits (Canadian Entitlement).
| |
| CSPE resold the Canadian Entitlement to 41 investor-owned and consumer-owned utilities in the Pacific Northwest under tri-party exchange agreements between CSPE, Bonneville and the individual utilities whereby CSPE delivers Canadian Entitlement capacity and energy as received from the Columbia River hydro-electric developments in the United States to the purchasing utility. Each utility, in turn, exchanges such capa-city and energy with Bonneville for federal capacity an'd energy shaped within limits, as necessary to meet the utilities load requirements.
| |
| Although the Canadian Entitlement was surplus to the needs of the Pacific Northwest at the time'of the purchase, forecasts indicated it would be usable in the area in the early 1970's. The cost of the Canadian Entitlement was higher than the power production costs in the Pacific Northwest but was lower than power production costs in California. Consequently, most of the Canadian Entitlement was in turn sold to California utilities on a five-year pull-back provision. A portion was committed to the State of California through the 1982-1983 operating year. All of the Canadian Entitle-ment, sold to California utilities has been withdrawn.
| |
| I 1, 1-6
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER d) Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement Early in the negotiations pertaining to the Canadian Treaty and to CSPE it became apparent that voluntary coordination could not insure compliance with all the provisions and operating procedures that would be required when Canadian Treaty power became available.
| |
| Negotiations were therefore started to formalize coordination of generating utilities affected by the Canadian Treaty provisions. On September 15, 1964, the Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement (" Coordination Agreement" ) was signed by three federal entities and 14 generating utilities having facilities affected by the treaty.
| |
| Among other things, the Coordination Agreement provides, on a regular basis, for:
| |
| : 1) Establishing a Critical Period based on historical water records.
| |
| : 2) Making Critical Period reservoir regulation studies on an integrated system basis and establishing reservoir operating curves (Energy Content Curves and Critical Rule Curves).
| |
| : 3) Determining Firm Load Carrying Capability (FLCC) for the Coordinated System and for each System.
| |
| : 4) Establishing required forced outage reserves for the Coordinated System and for each System.
| |
| : 5) Coordinating maintenance outages for the best.
| |
| resource usability by each System and by the Coordinated System.
| |
| : 6) Mandatory interchange of capacity and energy between Systems to assure the ability of each System and the Coordinated System to carry firm load up to the determined FLCC.
| |
| : 7) Conservation of nonfirm energy by coordinated use of available reservoir storage volume.
| |
| : 8) Use of third party transmission, as available, for Coordination Agreement requirements.
| |
| : 9) Mandatory release of water from upstream reservoirs, stored above Energy Content Curve, or delivery by upstream reservoir owner of equivalent energy in lieu of water releases.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER
| |
| : 10) Computation of 'and payment for upstream and coordina-tion benefits, subject to the FPC approval.
| |
| ll) Determination of priorities on use of facilities for Coordination Agreement requirements.
| |
| : 12) Determination of rates to be paid. for Coordination Agreement services.
| |
| : 13) Restoration of FLCC to those Systems whose FLCC is reduced due to the lengthened Critical Period occasioned by the additional storage provided under, the Canadian Treaty. Restoration is accom-plished by the Systems who gain FLCC from the increased storage (Columbia River main stream projects) sharing a portion of the gain with the Systems (off stream projects) who lose FLCC.
| |
| The Coordination Agreement treats the Coordinated System as being a single utility system having a single capacity and energy requirement and with total resources dedicated to serve that requirement. The NWPP Coor-dinating Group was expanded to provide the necessary engineering required to assemble and publish load and resource data relating the immediately upcoming Critical Period, to run reservoir regulating studies for planned reservoir operation, to determine FLCC and reserves and, in general, to guide operations under the Coordi-nation Agreement.
| |
| Under provisions of the Coordination Agreement each System representative, in joint meeting with other System representatives, is permitted to adjust, within limits, the plan for reservoir operation of its System reservoirs to meet its System's individual requirements.
| |
| Such adjustments do not permit the reduction of coordi-nated System firm capability without a commensurate reduction in estimated firm load to be carried.
| |
| By coordinating the resources of the Coordination Agreement signatories, both in planning and under operating conditions,, additional firm capability is made available to the area and nonfirm energy is con-served to a greater extent than is possible under isolated utility planning and operation. Emergency assistance is provided to each System as required.
| |
| Coordinated System-wide sharing of forced outage reserves xeduces the amount of such reserves below what would be required under isolated system operation.
| |
| Additional resources brought on line by a System become
| |
| : 1. 1-8
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER a part of tne Coordinated System resources unless the System constructing such facilities declares them to be outside the Coordinated System and operates then on an isolated basis.
| |
| Signing of the Coordination Agreement did not eliminate the NWPP since some members of the Pool do not have generating facilities that are affected by provisions of the Canadian Treaty, and therefore, are not signa-tory to the Coordination Agreement. The NWPP coordi-nates the resources of its members, including utilities in British Columbia, who are not in the Coordination Agreement with the resources of the Coordinated System and further assists the area by analyzing and, to the extent possible, solving the operating problems of regional interconnected operation as they arise.
| |
| West Grou Area of NWPP NWPP was divided into two groups early in its exis-tence, because of technical communication problems within the NWPP, mainly due to the inability of the telephone company to set up conference calls between all members. Utilities in Montana, Idaho, Utah and Wyoming became the East Group and those in Washington, Oregon and Northern California, plus BPA, the Corps of Engineers and the USBR became the West Group.
| |
| When PNUCC assigned the responsibility for load and resource forecasting to 'its Subcommittee on Loads and Resources, all NWPP members were requested to submit relevant data to the subcommittee. The East Group and British Columbia declined. The PNUCC Forecast there-fore became known as the West Group Forecast.
| |
| The West Group Area utilities serve loads in the area comprised of Northern Xdaho, Washington, Oregon except for the southeastern part of the state, a portion of Northern California, the area in Western Montana served by BPA and Pacific Power and Light Company and the area in Southern idaho served by BPA with resources of the USBR located in that area.
| |
| | |
| ER f) Western S stems Coordinatin Council (WSCC) ln 1967 management of the major utilities in 13 western states organized the WSCC in order to improve system reliability through coordinated planning and operation and to assess adequacy of power resources to meet forecasted load. Full membership is open to all utili-ties in the area who have bulk power supply resources or major transmission facilities that could affect bulk power deliveries. Associate membership is available to all utilities in the area who do not meet the require-ments of full membership. Membership is voluntary.
| |
| WSCC through its planning and operating committees has formulated and published "WSCC Reliability Criteria" consisting of two parts, namely:
| |
| : 1) Reliability Criteria for System Design
| |
| : 2) Minimum Operating Reliability Criteria Systems in the Pacific Northwest have agreed to adopt these criteria.
| |
| WSCC was the first reliability council to be formed.
| |
| As other areas organized councils, WSCC promoted the formation of the National Electric Reliability Council (NERC) to which all regional councils belong. NERC coordinates the activities of all regional councils and correlates regional council replies to requests from the FPC for information relative to reliability and adequacy of power resources and reserves. The NWPP, as a subregion, reports on such matters for all member utilites through WSCC.
| |
| : l. l. l. 2 'West Grou Hi'stori'cal Data PNUCC, since it was organized, has coordinated planning and forecasting for the West Group area and has a long-term record of reliability in forecasting. The historical winter peak firm load, the historical 12-month average firm load (energy demand), and the projections of these same values for each year's West Group Forecast from 1967 through 1977 have been summarized in Tables 1.1-1 (a) and (b) and 1.1-2 (a) and (b) respectively. Tnis information has also been presented graphically in Figures 1.1-1 and 1.1-2.
| |
| Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 1.1.1.3 Lon Ran e Pro'ection of Power Loads and Resources for Thermal Plannin West Grou Area (Lon Ran e
| |
| ,.'
| |
| Forecasts assembled by the PNUCC Loads and Resources Subcom-mittee treat the West Group area as one large system having a single capacity and energy load requirement and a single critical period capacity and energy capability.
| |
| Each utility member of PNUCC annually submits forecasts of ll the following items by months for the ensuing years, and by years for an additional 9 years:
| |
| a) Capacity and energy load requirements; b) Critical period capacity and energy capabilities; c) Schedule of imports into, and exports from, the West Group area; d) Exchanges of capacity and energy with other utilities within the West Group area; e) New resources to be added and existing resourc'es to be retired.
| |
| The first)land Forecast years in are included in both the the Long-Range Projection
| |
| [fat Group but the final 9 years are included only in the Long-Range Projection.
| |
| Table 1.1-3 is a summary, on a noncoincidental basis, of the recently prepared Long-Range Projection for the years 1978-1979 through 1997-1998. This forecast is a basis for planning for transmission line construction, resource instal-lation and reserve requirements for the West Group Area.
| |
| Table 1.1-3 shows a cumulative annual load growth for the 11-year period from 1978-1979 through 1988-1989 of 3.9% from 16,721,000 average kilowatts to'4,445,000 average kilowatts.
| |
| This compares to the estimated national cumulative annual load growth of 4.5% (see Figure 1.1-'3).
| |
| New generation planned for installation in the West Group Area through 1985 is discussed in Section 1.1.2.
| |
| The Pacific Northwest region has strong transmission ties with the 'Southwest and British Columbia and uses these ties for interregional transfers of surplus capacity and energy and for emergency assistance. Some firm capacity and energy interchanges also flow over these inter-ties. Only the firm interchanges over these ties are included in the compilation of the Long-Range Projection. The need for WNP-2 is based on the forecast contained in Table 1.1-3.
| |
| l.l-ll Amendment October 1978 2
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 1.1.1.4 Methodolo of Forecasts No single method of forecasting loads and resources is employed in compiling the Long-Range Projection. Rather, it is a compilation and summarization of the forecasts of the individual utilities serving the loads of the West Group area. The compilation and summarization is done by the PNUCC Loads and Resource Subcommittee.
| |
| The smaller consumer-owned utilities in the West Group area do not submit individual load and resource forecasts directly to the PNUCC Loads and Resource Subcommittee. Forecasts for such utilities are prepared cooperatively by the utility and BPA and are then included in the BPA loads and resource report to PNUCC. The method used by BPA and the utilities in the preparation of the fqrecasts is described in a BPA "Load Estimating Manual". ~ > The technique suggested in this manual is to break the load into component parts and examine the factors affecting growth in that component.
| |
| Although historical trends are recognized as one method, the need to relate the growth of each component to economic pressures is emphasized. For example, because of the large space heating component of load in the region, that load is usually treated independently within the service area,. with population growth and heating load saturation considered.
| |
| Seven large member utilities of the Supply System listed below submit individual forecasts to PNUCC.
| |
| a) The City of Seattle, Department of Lighting b) The City of Tacoma, Department of Lighting c) Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1 d) Cowlitz County Public Utility District No. 1 e) Clark County Public Utility District No. 1 f) Chelan County Public Utility District No. 1 g) Grays Harbor County Public Utility District. No. 1
| |
| : 1. 1-12
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The methodology used by these utilities are described below.
| |
| Cit of Seattle, De artment of Li htin Both peak and energy forecasts are based on historical data adjusted to current conditions. Loads are segre-gated by standard classifications: residential, commer-cial, light industry and heavy industry. Historical growth trends for each classification are analyzed and an estimated future growth rate assigned. Previous year data are then extrapolated for current year and for the next three years and adjusted to meet the previous ll-year forecast load curve at the end'of the third year of the new forecast. Xf a large adjustment is required, a completely new analysis is done and a new 20-year forecast is prepared. Seattle has recently had a study prepared by an independent consultant, titled Energy 1990, in which an independent load and resource forecast is included.
| |
| Cit of Tacoma, De artment of Li htin Loads are segregated as to heat sensitivity. A heat sensitivity curve is drawn for 100% sensitivity at 20-degrees F and 0%.sensitivity at 70-degrees F. Normal months temperatures are taken from the Weather Bureau's long-term determination. Previous year's heat sensi-tive loads are temperature adjusted by months. A curve fitting program has been developed to extrapolate temperature adjusted historical data on a month by month basis to derive the peak and energy forecasts for an ll-year. period. A *similar program is used for non-heat sensitive loads. The two forecasts are then combined to give an ll-year forecast of peak and energy requirement for use as required by planning programs.
| |
| This forecast is then expanded by years to complete the 20-year forecast.
| |
| Snohomish Count PUD The previously mentioned BPA Load Estimating Manual is used as a guide to developing forecasts of peak and energy requirements. Power Supply personnel of the District work closely with BPA in applying this guide.
| |
| Because of the large loads of such industries as aero-space and wood processing, adjustments to'he metho-dology are incorporated to assure a forecast represen-tative of the utility load.
| |
| 1.1-13
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER New forecasts are made at intervals of approximately three years and upgraded yearly. If a yearly review indicates wide variance from previously used data, such
| |
| , as population growth rate, customer usage or industrial expansion, a completely new forecast is prepared.
| |
| Cowlitz County PUD Each class of customer is evaluated independently.
| |
| Population growth, levels of usage, saturation and expected changes in large industrial loads are con-sidered in the load forecasts.
| |
| In estimating the power requirements of the District, a number of general assumptions have been .made relative to the future economy of the region. The recent announce-ments of expansions by both Longview Fibre Company and Weyerhaeuser at the Longview site and the dedication to environmental improvements at the sites indicates the local economy will remain strong; therefore, in the current forecast the economy of the county is assumed to remain healthy with continued expansion and techno-logical improvements of the industrial sector.
| |
| The load estimated is normalized for average weather conditions and other variable factors that affect the power and energy requirements. It is assumed that, awareness of the need to conserve all forms of energy resources will not drastically change 'the historic pattern of electric energy growth. The assumption is based on the opinion that more efficient use of electric energy will be made, but electric energy will be substi-tuted for other energy resources because of environmental and conservation reasons. The load forecast does not provide for a major conversion from other energy resources to electric energy; for example major conversion to electrified vehicles.
| |
| Completely new forecasts are made whenever an annual review of the previous forecast, as updated, indicates that data relative to population growth rate, industrial expansion or customer usage have changed to the updating of previous load data has given a distorted extent'hat forecast.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Clark Count PUD The District makes its own forecasts of peak and energy requirements essentially based on the BPA guidelines adjusted to fit the District's needs. The forecast is then reviewed in detail with BPA both to ensure that data used are reasonably in accord with regional data and to fit that forecast into those of other BPA cus-tomers. The forecast is updated annually based 'on the previous year's data. A completely independent analy-sis and forecast is made whenever there appears to be a major change in the 'demographic or industrial trends.
| |
| Chelan Count PUD This utility has two separate systems and makes a separate forecast for each system since the character of the loads in the systems vary somewhat. These two forecasts are then combined into a single utility forecast to be submitted to PNUCC.
| |
| Historical records of monthly and annual energy con-sumption and system load factors are used for forecast purposes. By means of computer programs, load growth rates by months are established and monthly percentages of annual energy consumption are determined. This historical annual energy consumption curve is plotted and extrapolated for the forecast period. Monthly peak requirements are then determined by applying average historical monthly load factors to forecasted monthly energy consumption.
| |
| Gra s Harbor Count PUD This utility prepares a load forecast in cooperation with BPA based on the BPA guidelines, modified to meet the particular needs of the District. This major load projection is made on approximately four or five year intervals and updated annually.
| |
| The methodology used by these utilities has been included to suggest the detail used in developing the Long-Range Projec-tion. Three points should be emphasized. The first is that most of the larger utilities look at their load growth in individual segments, considering population and economic growth within their service areas. Generally they do not rely on straight projections of historical trends but temper such projections with insight into causative factors.
| |
| 1.1<<15
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER W
| |
| Secondly, BPA, in its capacity of providing regional trans-mission facilities, provides an overview of the independent forecasts, particularly for the smaller utilities. Finally, Table 1.1-1 (a) and (b) and 1.1-2 (a) and (b) together with Figures 1.1-1 and 1.1-2 show the degree of accuracy of the PNUCC at predicting peak demand and energy load. This record shows a general success of the methodology as applied.
| |
| 1.1.15 Accurac of Forecasts The 10-year history of West Group forecasts compared to loads has been presented in Tables 1.1-1 (a) and (b) and 1.1-2 (a),and (b) . The percent accuracy of, the forecast is the difference between actual load experienced and the forecasted load, unadjusted for weather, divided by the forecasted load.
| |
| Fo'r forecasted capacity., the percent accuracy ranges overall
| |
| : 1) from +16.7% to -3.4%. Accuracy for the three operating years next succeeding the date of forecast ranges from
| |
| +11.8% to -3.4%. For the operating year next succeeding the date of forecast, the accuracy ranges from 11.1% to -3.4%.
| |
| The range of accuracy for forecasted energy is as follows:
| |
| Overall from 15.9% to -0.7%
| |
| Next three operating years 9.6% to -0.7%
| |
| Next operating year 5.7% to -0.4%
| |
| Because of the rapidly changing conditions relative to energy use, it is difficult to estimate the accuracy that has been achieved in the forecasts recently issued. There are a number of factors which must be considered in such an estimate. The operating years 1972-1973 and 1973-1974 (through December 1973) were very dry. Coupled with the national energy shortage, these dry months caused a severe reduction in area reservoir storage. All utilities of the area engaged in intensive conservation compaigns and were able to effect, on the average, a 7% to 8% reduction from expected use of electric power. Because of these reductions, no mandatory curtailment of firm loads was required.
| |
| Weather conditions changed radically in January 1974 with rain and snow falling in abundant quantities. Reservoirs soon returned to normal elevations and surplus power was generated for transmission to California to assist. utilities in that state in fuel conservation efforts. Precipitation continued in above-normal amounts, not only assuring reservoir 1.1-16 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| refilling, but also building up a snow pack far above normal with consequent predictions of heavy spill conditions in the run-off months. Campaigns for electric power use curtailment were rapidly switched to educational programs for wise use of energy. Generation of excess power continued to the point of loading inter-regional transmission lines to max-mimum capacity. Because of the surplus power availability in the area, loads have increased to near normal and export of surplus energy still continues.
| |
| The effects of conservation and of conversion to electric power usage are in opposing directions.
| |
| determine at this time which effect will be dominant in the It is difficult to next few years. West Group utility forecasters have consid-ered these matters and folded them into the recent. forecast of future loads. Consensus among those responsible for compiling the forecast is that its accuracy is probably within the range of accuracy of previous forecasts.
| |
| 1.1.16 Area Purchase from Outside Nest Group Area Consumer-owned utilities estimate no capacity imports and energy imports of 123 million EWH per year through 1982-1983 operating year and zero purchases of firm capacity and energy from outside the Nest, Group area during the remaining period of the forecast; however, these do from time to time purchase available nonfirm energy from British Columbia and California utilities and elsewhere when such nonfirm energy is not available from within the West Group area.
| |
| The federal system estimates energy imports during the next decade of up to 4.1 billion kilowatt-hours per year on the basis of energy returned from peak/energy exchange contracts with Caifornia utilities estimate an import of capacity and utilities.'nvestor-owned energy ranging from maximum of 2,020,000 kilowatts of capacity and 10.8 billion kilowatt-hours of energy in 1980-1981 down to 240,000 kilowatts of capacity and 0.6 billion kilowatt-hours of energy per year in 1997-1998. Imports include Pacific Power 6 Light Company transfers from Pacific Power 6 Light Company Wyoming Division, Portland General Electric Company Contract with Southern California Edison Company, Washington Water Power Company peak/energy exchange contract with San Diego Gas 6 Electric Company, Washington Water Power Company contracts with the Montana, Idaho, and Utah Power Companies and Puget Sound Power & Light Company contracts with Salt River Project and Utah Power Company.
| |
| : 1. 1-17 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER
| |
| ~
| |
| for the purchase of plant service power when a plant
| |
| 'xcept.
| |
| is not operating, the applicant does not make any purchase of power from either within or outside the region. Its only sales are of power from its projects to the participants in those projects.
| |
| 1.1.17 Load Components The power needs of a nation or region depend largely upon the size of the population, the standard of living of its people, and the character of its economy. Economists use, as a measure of the standard of living and productivity of an economy, the quantity of energy used residentially, industrially and commercially. The proper perspective for analyzing past load growth and estimated future load growth can be obtained by comparing the power needs in four main categories:
| |
| a) Residential, including farms b) Commercial c) Industrial d) Combined use for irrigation, street and highway lighting and other miscellaneous uses.
| |
| Figure 1.1-4 shows load growth past and future by these categories.
| |
| Figure 1.1-5 shows that from 1950 to 1973, the increase in total residential load of the Pacific Northwest (from 5 1/2 billion kilowatt,-hours in 1950 to 33 billion kilowatt-hours in 1973), was more than five times the 1950 total residen-tial load. Of this total growth, less than 20% was due to the increase in the number of residential consumers occasioned by population growth; thus, approximately 80% resulted from the rise in the use per consumer. The increase in electric space heating load, from 378 million kilowatt-hours in 1950 1.1-18 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER to 10.9 billion kilowatt-hours in 1973 (more than 28 times) was responsible for over 38% of the increase in residential consumption. Unless electric space heating load is limited by supply or regulation, it is predicted that there will be approximately three times as many homes electrically heated 20 years from now. Total residential space heating load is expected to reach 25 billion kilowatthours by that time.
| |
| Commercial loads and service industries have historically been one of the fastest growing segments of our economy. If past trends are used for projection, it is expected that an additional 160,000 new commercial customers will be on line in the next 20 years. Commercial loads are expected to increase from 1.1 billion kilowatt-hours in 1970 to 3.8 billion kilowatt-hours in 1990.
| |
| Technological advances historically have resulted in greater availability and use of electrical equipment, increased automation and improved working conditions. These, in turn, have resulted in a higher per capita energy usage, a higher per capita production, and a higher per capita income.
| |
| Several of the heavy industries involving the use of elec-trical energy in the Northwest include pulp, paper, plywood, lumber, chlorine, aluminum, fertilizers, steel, and other manufactured materials produced and used in, or exported from, the region. Industrial loads are expected to more than double from about 50 to 117 billion kilowatt-hours by 1990.
| |
| Figure 1.1-6 is the coordinated System load duration curve for the operating year 1981-1982. This load duration curve is expected to be similar to those for the first few years that WNP-2 i.'s scheduled to be in service.
| |
| 1.1.1.8 Interru tible Loads As federal hydro project power became available in the late 1930's not all of it was salable to the utilities of the area. The surplus was therefore available to BPA to sell to industry at a very attractive price. During the war years of the early 1940's, the light metals and other industries developed rapidly in the Pacific Northwest. These industries were able to consume large amounts of both firm and nonfirm energy and contributed greatly to the economic and electrical growth of the region. Firm power sales contracts were written by 'BPA to cover the base loads of these plants and nonfirm power was sold on an interruptible-type contract to provide the industries with power for excess production from
| |
| : 1. 1-19
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER time to time without the necessity of increasing the base firm power purchases. Power sold under interruptible contract could be curtailed any time nonfirm power was unavailable. Until recently, curtailment was made only for lack of nonfirm energy supply since the federal system had a large surplus of installed capacity. However, in recent years, curtailment has been made on several occasions because of insufficient capacity to supply excess energy during heavy load hours. Some utilities have contracts with indus-trial customers for interruptible power and are able to serve such customers either from nonfirm power developed on their own systems or by purchase from BPA or a combination of both. In some instances, utilities have written agree-ments or signed contracts for firm power sales, interrupti-ble on peak hours hour demands.
| |
| if required to reduce the utility's peak The City of Seattle Lighting Department had such a contract with Alcoa and presently has a letter of agreement with the Boeing Company Wind Tunnel and with Bethlehem Steel, Company for such interruptible power.
| |
| In recent years, as firm utility loads increased at a rate greater than the rate at which firm resources were being installed and industrial loads also increased, it became necessary for BPA to limit sales of additional firm power to industry. BPA and area industries cooperatively worked out a new type of industrial rate under which industry purchases up to 75% of its load requirements on a "Modified Firm Power" rate and the remainder of its needs on the "Inter-ruptible Power" rate. Modified firm rate is 5 cents per kilowatt per month less than the Firm Power rate. When present direct service industrial power sales contracts expire, .Bonneville Power Administration expects to replace them with contracts for the sale of power under the new rate schedule for industrial firm power included in BPA's revised rate schedules, which became effective on December 20,1974.
| |
| The following quote from the 1974 Bonneville Wholesale Power Rate Schedule describes these classes of power:
| |
| "1.1 FIRM POWER: Firm power is power which the Admini-strator wz.ll make continuously available to a purchaser to meet its load requirements except when restricted because the operation of generating or transmission facilities used. by the Administrator to serve such purchaser is suspended, interrupted, interfered with, curtailed or restricted as the result of the occurrence of any condition described in the Uncontrollable Forces 1.1-20
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER or Continuity of Service sections of the General Contract Provisions of the contract. Such restriction of firm power shall not be made until industrial firm power has been restricted in accordance with section 1.4 and dance with section 1.2.
| |
| 1.2 MODIFIED FIRM POWER: Modified firm power is power which the Administrator will make continuously availa-ble to a purchaser on a contract demand basis subject to:
| |
| (a) the restriction applicable to firm power, and (b) the following:
| |
| When a restriction is made necessary because the operation of generating or transmission facilities used by the Administrator to serve such purchaser and one or more firm power purchasers is suspended, interrupted, interfered with, curtailed or restricted as a result of the occurrence of any condition described in the Uncontrollable Forces or Continu-ity of Service sect'ions of the General Contract Provisions of the contract, the Administrator shall restrict such purchaser's contract demand for modified firm power to the extent necessary to prevent, if possible or minimize restriction of any firm power, provided, however, that (1) such restriction of modified firm power shall not exceed at any time 25 percent of the contract demand therefor and (2) the accumulation of such restrictions of modified firm power during any calendar year, expressed in kilowatt-hours, shall not exceed 500 times the contract demand therefor.
| |
| When possible, restrictions or modified firm power will be made ratably with restrictions of indus-trial firm power based on the proportion that, the respective contract demands bear to one another.
| |
| The extent of such restrictions shall be limited for modified firm power by this subsection and for industrial firm power by section 8 of the General Contract Provisions (Form IND-18) of the contract.
| |
| 1.3 FIRM CAPACITY: Firm capacity is capacity which the Administrator assures will be available to a pur-chaser on a contract demand basis except when operation of generating or transmission facilities used by the Administrator to serve such purchaser is suspended, interrupted, interfered with, curtailed or restricted as the result of the occurrence of any condition described in the Uncontrollable Forces or Continuity of
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Service sections of the General Contract Provisions of the contract.
| |
| 1.4 INDUSTRIAL FIRM POWER: Industrial firm power is power which the available to Administrator will make continuously a purchaser on a contract demand basis subject to:
| |
| (a) the restriction applicable to firm power, and (b) the following:
| |
| (1) The restrictions given in section 8, "Restric-of Deliveries," of the General Contract 'ion Provisions (Form IND-18) of the contract.
| |
| (2) When a restriction, is made necessary because of the operation of generating or transmission facilities used by the Administrator to serve such purchaser and one or more firm power purchasers is suspended, interrupted, interfered with, curtailed or restricted as a result of the occuirence of any condition described in the Uncontrollable Forces or Continuity of Service sections of the General Contract Provisions of the contract, the Adminis-trator shall restrict, such purchaser's contract demand for industrial firm power to the extent necessary to prevent, if possible, or minimize restriction of any firm power. When possible, restrictions of industrial firm power will be made ratably with restrictions of modif ied firm power based on the proportion that the respective contract demands bear to one another. The extent of such restrictions shall be limited for modified firm power by section 1.2(b) of the General Rate Schedule Provisions and for industrial firm power by section 8 of the General Contract Provisions (Form IND-18) of the contract.
| |
| I No additional Firm Power is presently available to BPA for sa le to industry under new long-term contracts.=
| |
| Availability of non-firm power has been very high over a period of many years, but the building of new dams in the West Group area and on the Columbia River and its tribu-taries in Canada has converted much of the energy previously available only on a nonfirm basis into firm energy. Future availability of nonfirm power is expected to be much lower than it has been in the past and will be sold by BPA under the BPA H-5 wholesale non-firm energy rate.
| |
| : l. 1-22
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 1.1.1.9 Facts Potentiall Affectin Demand Electrical power, like many other products, has an elasti-city of demand. This elasticity varies from area to area depending upon the relation between many factors such as availability of electric power compared to availability of alternate sources of power, relative costs of alternate sources, intensity of 'promotional advertising and activities with respect to competing types of energy, and energy costs compared to average consumer income. These factors as they exist in the Pacific Northwest are discussed in this section.
| |
| a) Advertisin and Ener Conservation The Pacific Northwest electrical energy supply has depended on the development of hydro-electric resources throughout the region, particularly on the Columbia River. The development of this resource was encouraged, on a multipurpose basis, for the hydro-electric supply as well as for flood protection, navigation, and irri-gation. In the past, excess energy was available for sale, particularly during high flow, off-peak periods.
| |
| By encouraging the sale of such energy, the average price to consumers of the region was reduced to levels among the lowest in the nation.
| |
| As the economical hydro resource approaches full utili-zation, the picture changes, particularly with the advent. of the Columbia River's large upstream hydro storage reservoirs which permit considerably more latitude in energy usage timing. That, the picture was changing was generally foreseen by regional utility management a few years ago, and the advertising policy o f the region changed markedly towards conservation-the wise usage of energy. The programs followed by some of the larger utilities in the region are:
| |
| : 1) Seattle Cit Li ht Promotional advertising and acta.vasty was ended January 1, 1971. At that time a program of education relative to the wise and efficient, use of electricity was started. This program was carried on mostly through bill stuffers and handouts. Early in 1973, an intensive conservation program was begun using bill stuffers, handouts, radio, televison, and newspaper advertising.
| |
| Because of the critical shortage that had developed in hydro capability (reduced stream flows and below-normal reservoir elevations) the public was urged to reduce their energy consumption as much as possible.
| |
| 1.1-23 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER In 1977 a Conservation Office was established to coordinate and monitor a long-range conservation program with a goal of reducing the projected 1990 demand by about 20 percent. This program involves conservation projects in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors.
| |
| Tacoma Cit Li ht Early in 1970, Tacoma ceased all promotional advertising and activity. Little advertising was done until the summer of 1973 when the "Be-A-Watt-Watcher" educational program was started using mostly bill stuffers and handouts.
| |
| Consideration is now being given to starting an educational campaign urging installation of storm windows and doors, and adding insulation to homes plus education relative to efficient use of electricity.
| |
| Snohomish Count Public Utilit District Promo-motional advertising and activity was ended early in 1972. An intensive educational program was started in early 1973 apprising customers of the critical hydro capability shortage and advising and them to use electricity wisely and efficiently promoting the installation of home insulation. The present program is based on providing information relative to wise use of energy.
| |
| Cowlitz Count Public Utilit District All promotional advertising and activity ended early in 1972. In the summer of 1972 an educational program was instituted relative to the need for economical use of electricity. In early 1973, an intensive campaign on conservation was begun using all news media, bill stuffers, handouts, etc.
| |
| Speakers were made available to civic organizations, church and community groups and schools to help educate the general public on the immediate need to conserve electricity and the long-range need to conserve electricity and the long-range need. to conserve energy of all kinds. Presently, the effort is toward economical use of energy in total.
| |
| Clark Count Public Utilit District All promo-tional advertising and activity ceased in early 1972. An educational program on nuclear power production and the wise use of electricity was started late in 1972. Early in 1973, and intensive campaign was stated to inform the public of the hydro capability shortage. Since January 1974 the campaign has gone back to education on economical use of power.
| |
| : 1. 1-24 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER
| |
| : 6) Chelan Count Public Utilit District Promotional acta.vztxes and advert'.sang were reduced early in 1972 and ended entirely in August 1972. Early in 1973, an intensive conservation program was put advertis-into operation using radio and newspaperAssociation's ing. Presently, American Public Power recommended advertising is being used.
| |
| : 7) Electric Lea ue of the Pacific Northwest The utxlxtz.es of the Puget Sound Area Seattle City Light, Tacoma City Light, Snohomish County Public Utility District and Puget Sound Power and Light Company), electrical contractors and electrical equipment supply firms are members of this organi-zation. The League has for many years advertised for the benefit of League members. Prior to 1971, In this advertising was promotional in nature.environ-1971 and 1972, the thrust was shifted to mental aspects of power production and use. In 1973, the League institued in intense conservation program encouraging installation of insulation and economical use of energy. Advertising was by radio, television and new media. In 1974, the program dropped back to education on efficient use of energy.
| |
| b) Bulk Power Costs Prior to the establishment of BPA in 1937, each utility in the area operated essentially on an isolated system basis, providing its own power supply, including reserves, as well as its own required transmission. The few inter-tie transmission lines that. existed were relatively light and were used primarily for emergency purposes.
| |
| A small amount of nonfirm power transactions occurred from time to time. Power supply was from a mixture of hydro and thermal plants. Cost of power varied from utility to utility.
| |
| In 1938 BPA adopted its first schedule of wholesale power rates based on a kilowatt,-year concept. At-site delivery (within 15 miles of generation) was priced at,
| |
| $ 14.50 per kilowatt-year and elsewhere on the Bonneville System the charge was $ 17.50 per kilowatt-year. Based on a "capacity with associated energy" concept, this rate translates into 2 mills per kilowatt-hour for 100%
| |
| load factor and 4 mills per kilowatt-hour for 50% load factor. Nonfirm power was sold for $ 11.50 per kilowatt year.
| |
| 1.1-25 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER These rates were basically demand charges with no charge for associated energy that could be fitted into a load. A utility with hydro generation and associated reservoir seasonal storage could absorb energy at 100%
| |
| load factor for the greater part of the operating year while the utility without such facilities could only absorb energy at its system load factor rate.
| |
| As more utilities requested federal power for use in their system load, BPA added rate schedules to meet the needs of these customers. In addition to existing rates, firm capacity rates and demand-energy rates were developed. The nonfirm rate was eventually broken into two parts with a demand rate maintained for "Interrupt-ible Power" and a straight energy rate established for nonfirm energy purchases used for such purposes as thermal displacement.
| |
| The cost of power under the BPA wholesale rate schedules remained basically unchanged until December 1965, when the cost of firm power was increased by an average of about 3%. On December 20, 1974 BPA established the rate schedules presently in effect which increased wholesale power costs by an average of 27%. Transition of the power supply available from BPA from mostly hydro generation to a mix of hydro and large thermal power plant generation is the major factor contributing to the necessity for the increase in rates. The con-sumer owned and Federal portions of Phase 1 of the Hydro-Tehrmal Power Program, previously described, melds the higher cost of thermal power into the lower cost federal hydro power through the use of the "net billing" concept previously described. Thus, the cost of nonfederal thermal power delivered to BPA under Phase 1 of the Hydro-Thermal Power Program is spread to all BPA ratepayers through the cost-melding process.
| |
| WNP-2 is included under the net billing portion of the Phase 1 program.
| |
| In addition to increasing the cost of power, the present BPA schedule of rates changes the concept under which power is sold in order to more nearly approach a cost-of-service concept. The rates are in the form of a two-part, demand-energy type with the level of the rates being higher for winter loads than for summer loads.
| |
| 1.1-26
| |
| | |
| BPA estimates that an increase in wholesale power costs to. total requirements custo'mer (a utility that purchases a
| |
| all of its power requirements from BPA) does not have more than a 40% impact on that customer's resale rates since that's the approximate qgycentage of total costs associated with power supply.
| |
| Future increases in the cost of wholesale power will have an effect on future load requirements. The degree to which the load growth pattern of the area is impacted depends upon several factors. The most important factor to a given utility its ability to meld higher costs of power purchased from the federal system with the relatively stable cost of the hydro that is either self-generated or purchased from other nonfederal low cost hydro sources. The amount of federal power pur-chased in comparison to the total power supply deter-mines the degree to which the increased cost of federal power will affect the overall cost of power required to serve load.
| |
| Another factor relative to the effect on the load growth of a system is the affluence of the customers served by a utility. In a community where the cost of electricity to a customer is relatively low compared to the customer's income, the'rate increase will have little effect while in a low income area where the cost of power consumers a much larger share of income, more reduction in growth rate may be noted.
| |
| The West Group area utilities have considered these factors in preparing the data submitted to PNUCC for inclusion in the West Group Forecast. PNUCC is study-ing a program to account for price elasticity of demand.
| |
| But at present, the majority of the individual fore-casts do not account for this.
| |
| The applicant is a member of PNUCC, the cooperative group of utilities'in the Pacific Northwest presently responsible for coordinating regional long-range power supply planning.
| |
| PNUCC assembles forecasts made by individual utilities and publishes a composite forecast for this group of utilities.
| |
| The Northwest. Power Pool (NWPP) is the cooperative agency responsible for short-range planning (up to the length of time encompassed by the existing Critical Period of the area) and for day-to-day operation.
| |
| Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The NWPP, including both the East Group and the West. Group, is considered a sub-regional group of the Western Systems Coordinating Council and reports to WSCC for the entire area on such matters as: (1) load and resource forecasts; (2) system reliability; (3) transmission capabilities; (4) capacity and energy transfer capability with other regions; (5) answers to Federal Power Commission Dockets which can be submitted on a regional basis; (6) regional operating pro-blems that could affect other areas, and (7) major regional power outages.
| |
| The applicant is not a utility and therefore makes no direct report to any of the region's organizations. But all of its resources and operating characteristics are included in all regional reports through the utilities who are parti-cipants in the applicant's projects.
| |
| WNP-2, scheduled for initial operation in December, 1980, will be one of the major thermal projects constructed under Phase 1 of the Hydro-Thermal Power Program, which was planned to meet the load requirements of the West Group area through 1985. The Hydro-Thermal Power Program is discussed in more detail in Section 1.1.2.1 of this report.
| |
| Prior to 1967, long-range plannz.ng for power supply require-ments was carried on individually by each utility in the area with the PNUCC summarizing and. correlating load and resource forecasting of the individual utilities and acting as a forum for review of resources required to carry pro-jected firm area loads. Up to that point in time, federal forecasts showed a surplus of federal resources over the amount required to carry forecasted non-federal resources.
| |
| Northwest utilities capable of installing resources planned to do so only to the extent that the long-range costs of power from such resources would be less than the expected costs of federal hydro-power.
| |
| By 1967 it was apparent the era of federal resource surplus was rapidly drawing to a close. Also the ability of utilities to install additional hydro capability was limited since few hydro sites remained that could meet the test of economic development as well as environmental acceptability.
| |
| Since thermal generation was the only"viable alternative to hydro generation, utilities recognized that cooperative long-range planning was necessary to obtain economy of scale for future resource installations. Formation of the Joint 1-1-28 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Power Planning Council provided the vehicle for such cooperative planning. The Hydro-Thermal Power Program was conceived by the Council, consisting of 110 electric cooperatives, public utilities and private utilities in the Pacific North-west. Recently PNUCC whose membership is nearly identical to that of the Council has expanded its responsibilities to include those formerly attributed to the Council and the Council has become inactive. Most of the power supply in the region has been historically generated from hydro-electric resources, but the remaining hydro projects to be developed will be essentially for peaking power rather than for base load. Thermal power will provide an increasing portion of the base load resources in the future. The combination of hydro peaking and large-scale thermal generating plants was found by the Council to be the soundest approach to achieve the aims of the Hydro-Thermal Power Program. The principles of Phase 1 of this program and the federal government's participation through BPA, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, have been endorsed by current and previous Administrations and by Congress.
| |
| In summary, the members of the Council have concluded that the Hydro-Thermal Power Program will:
| |
| a) Best preserve the environment, including the natural beauties of the Pacific Northwest.
| |
| b) Make efficient and economic use of the Federal Columbia River Power System.
| |
| c) Obtain the economies of scale from large thermal gener-ating plants.
| |
| d) Meld the large thermal generating plants with exiting hydro generating units and the peaking generation units which will be installed at existing dams, to achieve the most economic and reliable power supply to meet the power requirements of the Pacific Northwest.
| |
| Phase 1 of the Hydro-Thermal Power Program of thermal gene-rating plants for installation through 1985* is tabulated as follows:
| |
| *Extended from 1981 to 1985 due to slippage in plant construc-tion schedules.
| |
| : l. 1-29
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Scheduled Date of Probable Principal Capacity Commercial Energy S onsor Location ~Te Pacific Power Light Co. and The Washington Water Power Company (Centralia Centralia, Coal-Project) WA fired 1,400 Operating Portland General Electric Company St. Helens, (Trojan Project OR Nuclear 1,130 Operating Pacific Power Rock Light Co. (Jim Springs, Coal- 500 Bridger Project) NY fired 500 Operating Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Hanford, Dec 1980 May 1981 Project No. 2) WA Nuclear 1,100 Washington Public.
| |
| Power Supply System (Nuclear Hanford, Project No. 1) WA Nuclear 1,250 Dec 1982 June 198 Washington Public Power Supply System (Nuclear Satsop, Project No. 3) WA Nuclear 1,240 Jan 1984 June 1984 Portland General Electric Company (Pebble Springs Boardman Project No. 1) OR Nuclear 1,260 Apr 1986 Apr 1986
| |
| *Date on which construction schedule is based.
| |
| **Most probable date energy will be available, based on national experience. This is the basis for resource planning.
| |
| Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Xn response to the combined efforts of the Council, BPA, and the individual utilities involved, legislation was enacted to allow consumer-owned and investor-owned utilities jointly to construct, own and operate generating facilities. Plans for the first of such plants were formulated and executed for the construction of the 1,400 MW Centralia coal fired thermal project under the joint ownership concept. Four investor-owned utilities own 72 percent of the project and four consumer-owned utilities own the other 28 percent as tenants-in-common.
| |
| Under the Hydro-Thermal Power Program, the federal system will supply transmission and install peaking generation at federal projects to integrate the output of thermal plants, to be built by Northwest utilities, into the total genera-ting resources of the area. Phase 1 of the Hydro-Thermal Power Program is expected to provide the resources required in the region through 1985.
| |
| Under Phase 2 of the Hydro-Thermal Power Program, announced on December 14, 1973, the area utilities identified addi-tional projects which are currently under investigation to meet forecasted load growth through 1989. While the specific role of BPA has changed somewhat from Phase 1, in Phase 2 the area will continue to build generation and transmission facilities on a cooperative schedule. The thermal genera-ting plants included in Phase 2 are tablulated as follows:
| |
| Scheduled Date of Probable Principal Capacity Commercial Energy Location T~e Puget Sound Colstrip, Coal- 330 Operating Power a Light MT fired (Colstrip Project No. 1)*
| |
| Puget Sound Colstrip, Coal- 330 Operating Power Supply- MT fired (Colstrip Project No. 2)*
| |
| Pacific Power & Rock Coal- 334 Dec 1979 Dec 1979 Light Co. (Jim Springs, fired Bridger Proj.
| |
| No. 4)
| |
| *Not specifically identified as a Phase 2 project.
| |
| 1.1-31 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Scheduled Date of Probable Principal Capacity Commercial Energy S onsor Location ~Te Puget Sound Colstrip Coal- 700 Apr 1982 Apr 1982 Power Supply MT fired (Colstrip Project No. 3)*
| |
| Portland General Boardman, Coal- 530 July 1980 Nov 1980 Electric Company OR fired (Carty Coal Proj.)
| |
| Puget Sound Colstrip, Coal- 700 Feb 1983 Feb 1983 Power 6 Light MT fired (Colstrip Project No. 4)*
| |
| Puget Sound Power Sedro Nuclear 1,288 July 1985 July 1985 6 Light Company Wooley, (Skagit Proj. WA No. 1)
| |
| Washington Public Hanford, Nuclear 1,250 June 1984 Dec 1984 Power Supply WA System (Nuclear Proj. No. 4)
| |
| Washington Public Satsop, Nuclear 1,240 July 1985 Dec 1985 Power Supply WA System (Nuclear Proj. No. 5)
| |
| Puget Sound Power Sedro Nuclear 1,288 July 1987 July 1987 a Light Company Wooley, (Skagit Proj. WA No. 2)
| |
| Portland General Boardman, Nuclear 1,260 Apr 1989 Apr 1989 Electric Company OR (Pebble Springs Project No. 2)
| |
| Although the overall planning of resource installation is carried out on a cooperative basis, each utility reserves the right to determine which project it will participate in and the extent of such participation. Since planning is done on the basis of installing sufficient resources in the area to meet load requirements, individual utility forecasts of power requirements are included in the regional plan.
| |
| *Not specifically identified as a Phase 2 project.
| |
| 1.1-32 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER
| |
| : l. 1. 2. 2 Short-Term Plannin The NWPP carries out the short-term, cooperative planning for all systems in the pool. This short-term planning consists of:
| |
| a) Planning the coordinated use of both federal and non-federal resources, including pooling of reserve require-ments, to provide the greatest practicable output of firm power from those resources.
| |
| b) Determining the length of the Critical Period to be used and the adverse water available for power pro-duction in that period.
| |
| c) Determining the amount of firm capacity and energy loads that can be carried under adverse water conditions by each member of the pool and by the pool as a whole.
| |
| d) Determining operating rule curves for each reservoir included in pool resources.
| |
| ln addition to the short-term planning functions for NWPP, the Coordinating Group performs additional short-term plan-ning functions required by the Coordination Agreement such as (1) Computing the reserve requirements of each System and the Coordinated System: (2) preparing a schedule of capacity and energy interchanges between Systems based on water availability under adverse conditions; and (3) other plan-ning functions, some of which are listed under d) "Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement" in Section 1.1.1.1 of this report.
| |
| Under c) above, any System having either capacity or energy load greater than the amount of firm resource available to that System must:
| |
| a) Supply firm resources at least equal to the indicated deficiency, from those within the Coordinated System which are not currently committed to serve Coordinated System firm loads, or b) Supply firm resources at least equal to the indicated deficiency, from outside the Coordinated System; or c) Assign the estimated firm load which is above the capability to carry such load (as determined in b) above) to a nonfirm status and serve it nonfirm power available from any source; or only from
| |
| : 1. 1-33
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER d) Totally interrupt such excess firm load if no nonfirm power is available.
| |
| Although these planning functions are carried out on a group basis, each system maintains the right, within limits, to operate its system to meet its system requirements. One such limitation contained in the Coordination Agreement is that planned reservoir operation cannot be altered to a degree that will cause spill of firm energy on the Coordinated System.
| |
| 1.1.3 Ca acit Re uirements In order to determine system generating capacity requirements, a number of factors must, be considered, not the least of which is the amount of firm capacity load that the system expects to serve. Other factors to consider include:
| |
| a) Capacity required to replace units out of service for scheduled maintenance; b) Capacity required for replacing the capacity of units that are forced out of service or that are forced to reduce output; c) Capacity to serve unanticipated load growth; and d) Capacity required to assure system reliability.
| |
| The forecasting methods used in the West Group area to determine the future capacity load that the system expects to serve were discussed in Section 1.1.1.4. All the other factors can be grouped under the general heading of reserves.
| |
| 1.1.3.1. Ca acit. Reserves System reliability (the ability to serve firm load with interruptions held to a level acceptable to both customer and system) is dependent upon the amount of capacity availa-ble to the system with which to serve the requirements of its customers at the time those requirements occur and, is measured in percent. Thus, a system with 100 percent relia-bility would always be capable'of serving its without interruption or curtailment. It is customers'equirements entirely possible, although not economically feasible, to install enough generating capability to attain 100 percent reliability of power supply and to install enough transmis-sion, transformation and distribution equipment to deliver that capacity to customers without interruption. Each system, or pool of systems, must therefore determine the level of reliability it can maintain, on an economic basis, that will be acceptable to customers.
| |
| : l. 1-34
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The degree of reliability attainable on a system or pool of systems is dependent upon the amount of capacity maintained in the system over and above the capacity demand of the load being served. This capacity surplus to load can be generally classified as reserves. All of the factors previously mentioned that go into determining the total generating capacity requirements of a system, except, load requirements, can be put in this classification.
| |
| Some of the factors previously mentioned overlap; therefore, a subdivision of classification is helpful in discussing reserves in general. One possible subdivision is as follows:
| |
| a) Standby Reserves
| |
| : 1) Load Growth Reserves for:
| |
| (a) Forecasted Load Growth (b) Unexpected Load Growth
| |
| : 2) Scheduled Maintenance Reserves
| |
| : 3) Forced Outage Reserves for (a) Total Unit Outage (b) Partial Unit Outage (c) Capacity unattainable due to nonpower purposes (d) Capacity unattainable due to operating conditions b) Spinning Reserves
| |
| : 1) Reserves for largest single contingency outage for:
| |
| (a) Generation Outage (b) Transmission Line Outage
| |
| : 2) Reserve for continuous load regulation
| |
| : 3) Reserves for frequency bias obligations Spinning reserves are standby reserves that are immediately available to replace generation forced out of service or curtailed for any reason.
| |
| 1.1-35
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER r
| |
| Reliability can also be expressed in terms of the frequency of loss of load due to power supply being less than load requirements. Although many large utilities use a criteria for adequacy of reliability based on loss of load not more frequently than once in 10 years, the West Group area uses a criteria of loss of load not more often than every 20 years. Excerpts from the 1970 FPC National Power Survey relative to adequacy of reserve levels follows:
| |
| Reserve Practices "Individual systems and power pools utilize a variety of methods for determining appropriate reserve levels.
| |
| The methods vary from use of a simple percent of peak load, to matching reserves to the capability of the largest unit or pair of units in service, to. very complicated calculations of outage probability taking into consideration such elements as number and size of units, forced outage rates, and expected load patterns.
| |
| Reserve margins considered adequate for most systems, including the spinning reserve component, range between 15 and 25 percent of peak load.
| |
| Each system, pool, or coordinating group develops spinning reserve criteria which it believes will show the minimum appropriate reserve for that particular power supply entity. Generally, the level of such reserve and its distribution among generating units takes into consideration the system characteristics and rate of required responses. The variations in practices refl'ect such things as differences in sizes and types of units, the'umber and capability of transmission interconnections, the geographical extent and configu-ration of a system, and pertinent operating agreements among interconnected systems."
| |
| The West Group Systems of the Northwest Power Pool serve a large geographical area. Major systems serving customers in the West Group area are parties to the Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement. A major benefit of such an agree-ment is to provide for capacity reserves on a coordinated use basis. The Coordination Agreement states "The Coordinated System shall maintain reserve capacity at a level sufficient.
| |
| to protect against loss of load to the extent the probability of load loss in a contract. year shall be no greater than the equivalent of one day in 20 years. The determination of such probability shall be based upon characteristics of peak load variability and generating equipment forced outage rates."
| |
| 1.1-36
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The Coordination Agreement provides that every utility, to the extent practicable, will operate its own system as though the Coordinated System were being operated by a single entity.
| |
| Provision for capacity and energy exchanges assures each utility of assistance from the onentire Coordinated System one system will not cause such that a loss of resources loss of load on that system as long as there are resources in the area capable of carrying the total area load, and assures that nonfirm loads of the area will be curtailed in order to supply power to firm loads regardless of the utili-ties involved.
| |
| The Coordination Agreement is a contractual agreement which determines the actual reserves that each utility is required to maintain under normal operating conditions during the current operating period, based on the "Critical Period" of record (adverse water).
| |
| The region is, presently experiencing a shift from a system V
| |
| which is nearly all hydro to one of combined hydro and thermal generation. Such a shift in the nature of power supply requires a corresponding shift in reserve planning.
| |
| Past experience has shown a reserve of 5 percent of installed hydro generating capacity to be adequate and for planning purposes the area had assumed a thermal reserve requirement equal to 15 percent of installed thermal capacity. Recently, agreement has been reached in the PNUCC that the following criteria for capacity reserves will be used for planning:
| |
| a) For the first operating year of the forecast total planned reserves for capacity will be 12 percent of total area peak load for January.
| |
| b) For each subsequent year the percent of area peak load for January required for total reserves will be increased by one percent (1%) of January peak load until the percentage reaches 20 percent.
| |
| 1.1.3.2 Effects of 0 eration of the Pro'ects on the Coordinated S stem For purposes of this statement adjustments have been made to the Long-Range Projection (1978 Blue Book) because of recent changes in expected plant capacity and energy output and expected commercial operating dates for the WPPSS nuclear projects under construction and planned. These changes and 1 ~ 1 37 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER their effect on the Long-Range Projections are incorporated in Table 1.1-4.
| |
| If WNP-2 is available as expected (Probable Energy Date) to meet the winter peak load of the operating year 1981-1982, the capacity reserves, based on the data on the Blue Book will be 22.9 percent of area loads. If WNP-2 does not begin
| |
| "
| |
| operation as planned the capacity reserves will be reduced to 19.3 percent. Capacity. reserves with and without WNP-2 are compared to the desired reserves in Figure 1.1-7.
| |
| Thermal plants like WNP-2 are planned as base-load additions to the system and thus are important elements of the energy capability of the system. In the ten year period 1978-1987 there are total energy deficits ranging from 450 to 2373 average megawatts (MWe) with deficits on the order of 2000 MWe in the period 1980-1984, as shown in Figure 1.1-8. The Federal System interruptible loads of approximately 1000 MWe could reduce the deficits to the level shown in Figure 1.1-8 for firm energy. Firm energy deficits range from 64 MWe to 1298 MWe in 1978-1984, with surpluses of 316 MWE to 655 MWe in 1985-1987. However, without WNP-2 there are firm energy deficits in every year 1978-1987.
| |
| 1.1.4 Statement on Area Need As explained in Section 1.1 and elsewhere in this report, tha applicant does not itself engage in the distribution of electrical power to the retail market but serves as a bulk electrical power supplier to utility systems in the West Group area. The need for capacity and energy was therefore developed in Section 1.1 on the Coordinated System basis rather than on the applicant's requirements. This section contains additional statements relative to regional power requirements and to reserve criteria of the West Group area.
| |
| The Public Power Council (PPC), an organization of 104 consumer owned utilities in the Pacific Northwest, has determined that the Project is needed in the area to assure an adequate power supply for such consumer owned utility customers. Table 1.1-6 indicates how the capability of the Project will be utilized in the BPA and Public Agency loads.
| |
| The Joint Power Planning Council and the PNUCC have made regional studies to determine the regional resource require-ments and have promulgated the results of these studies by issuance of a tabulation of projects required under Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Hydro-Thermal Power Program as discussed in Section 1.1.2.1 Tables 1.1-7 and 1.1-8 indicate how the
| |
| : 1. 1-38 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Project fits into area resource requirements. Each of these tables shows the regional deficiency with and without the Project. Also each shows such deficiency based on the probable energy date (milestone concept) and on the scheduled date of commercial operation.
| |
| PPC and PNUCC commi'ttees regularly review updated load forecasts and plant installation schedules in order to ensure a reliable power supply. Xf needed, requests to advance or delay plant installation dates will be made by these organizations to plant sponsors.
| |
| 1.1.4.1 Reserve Criteria of the Area For planning purposes the PNUCC has agreed upon the follow-ing minimum reserve requirements (previously stated in Section 1.1.3.1) for use in resource requirement analysis for the Long-Range Projection which is the study used by the region in planning power supply.
| |
| Starting with the forecast for the 1974-1975 to 1994-1995 years the following criteria for capacity reserves were adopted for planning:
| |
| a) For the first year of the current forecast total planned reserves for capacity will be 12 percent of total area .
| |
| peak load for January.
| |
| b) For each subsequent year the percent of area peak load for January required for total reserves will be increased by one percent (1%) of January peak. load until the percentage reaches 20 percent.
| |
| Also WSCC through its planning and operating committees has formulated and published "WSCC Reliability Criteria" con-sisting of two parts, namely:
| |
| a) Reliability Criteria for System Design (6) b) minimum Operating Reliability Criteria Planned Area Reserves can be found in Figure 1.1-7.
| |
| Required reserves for actual operating conditions are determined in Critical Period Reservoir Regulation Studies and Reserve Studies prepared annually for the ensuing Critical Period (presently a 43-1/2 month period). Reserves are calculated for the Coordinated System by probability methods and distributed among Systems according to iso-probability as specified in Exhibit 4 of the Agreement. A more detailed discussion of the reserves required by the Agreement is contained in Section 1.1.3.1.
| |
| 1.1-39 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 1.2 OTHER OBJECTIVES The applicant has discussed potential beneficial byproduct uses of cooling water from Supply System projects with federal, state and local agencies as well as several poten-tial private sponsors. The Supply System will continue to cooperate with these potential sponsors and report develop-merits in the area of possible agricultural, industrial, recreational and economic aspects of any byproduct use of the project's cooling facilities.
| |
| The design, construction and operation of this project, the scheduling of which is vital to the power needs of the region, cannot be made contingent upon unknown restrictions and/or successful implementation of a complex unrelated byproduct use. In the event that the cooling water facili-ties, included as a part of this project, can be adapted to byproduct uses the Supply System will cooperate to the maximum practicable extent.
| |
| 1.2-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 1.3 CONSEQUENCES OF DELAY If WNP-2 is delayed beyond the scheduled commercial operation dates the most important direct effects will be to increase the cost of the Project and decrease the energy generating capability that is an integral part of the region's electric generating resource planning schedule. A delay could also produce secondary effects which are less well defined, such as curtailment of power to serve industrial loads.
| |
| A delay in Project development schedule prior to commercial operation would cause an increase in cost, the magnitude of which would depend upon when such a delay occurred. Under the present financing scheme for WNP-2, a delay which is incurred near the end of the construction period after essentially all o'f the construction funds have been expended would cause the largest increase in cost. This would be due to the requirement to pay carrying costs on the funds expended until WNP-2 can begin to generate power and thus revenues.
| |
| Additional costs would be incurred for salaries and other fixed costs associated with maintaining the staff for WNP-2.
| |
| Shortages of electricity would create increased demands for alternative energy sources such as coal, oil and natural gas. The substitution of fossil fuel resources for electric energy means using scarce depletable resources, particularly oil or natural gas, when relatively abundant nuclear fuel could be used instead. Power shortages would only intensify our existing shortages of oil and natural gas.
| |
| The problem of air pollution, particularly in urban areas, would be aggravated by the substitution of fossil fuels for nuclear or hydro generated electricity. Consequent damages to property and hazards to public health associated with increased air,pollution, while difficult to evaluate in monetary terms, would nevertheless be real and substantial.
| |
| An industrialized economy depends on electricity. Two-thirds of all electric energy, both in the nation and in the Pacific Northwest, is used in commerce and industry. An inadequate power supply for industry means reduced capital investment, fewer jobs, decreased payrolls, less production and lower living standards.
| |
| increased burden of welfare and To government it means the unemployment payments, concurrent with a decrease of personal and corporate tax receipts.
| |
| : 1. 3-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER
| |
| : l. 3.1 Power Curtailment A qualitative calculation of the impact of power curtailment in terms of dollars would be difficult to perform. However, there is presently a method which has been developed on how to curtail the use of electrical power if the system is unable to meet demands. A permanent deficiency in electric power generating sources would result first in a shutdown of large industrial loads utilizing interruptible power. Long term. shutdown of these facilities would undoubtedly reduce the residential demand as a result of reduced employment and economy in the area.
| |
| In the Northwest, the thermal generating resources must be scheduled to allow the region to serve the firm load require-ments. during the period of low flow in the region's rivers
| |
| ,(critical water period) . During the average water years, i.s possible to generate amounts of electric energy that are it
| |
| .
| |
| greater than would be available during a critical water year. This power, however, cannot be sold as firm power and is unusable by the average consumer.
| |
| In 1972 the Northwest Power Pool drafted plans for curtail-ing loads in the event of long term power shortages. These plans supplement but serve an entirely different purpose from, the existing procedures, which cover short term load shedding. The latter are designed to limit power system breakup in the event of sudden power failures, and expedite the return to normal operation. The load curtailment pro-cedures are intended to minimize the impact of prolonged power shortages. These long term emergencies could result from weather conditions, shortages of transmission capacity, generating capacity, energy capability or combinations thereof.
| |
| The load curtailment proposal has been drafted jointly by 18 power generating utilities and agencies serving the four northwestern states, British Columbia, Utah, and portions of adjacent states.
| |
| Following curtailment of interruptible power there, are three possible curtailment levels that might be followed in an emergency. The first two would be voluntary, and the third would involve mandatory curtailment of firm customer power loads. The first level measures would be implemented by the systems actually experiencing an emergency and consist of the following:
| |
| 1~3 2
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Level One Curtailment l) Curtail non-essential utility uses such as floodlighting, sign lighting, display light-ing,office lighting, etc.
| |
| : 2) Eliminate electric heating and air conditioning in utility owned houses, buildings and plants where feasible.
| |
| : 3) Indicate, and instruct employees to turn off lights, motors and other uses of electricity when not needed.
| |
| : 4) Discontinue service to electrical customers in accordance with contractual provisions.
| |
| : 5) Request large industrial customers to reduce non-essential load.
| |
| : 6) Request all other customers to reduce non-essential load by appeals through appropriate news media channels.
| |
| : 7) Where feasible, reduce voltages at the distribution or subtransmission level.
| |
| Level Two Curtailment If the above actions do not solve the problem and additional assistance is required, then level two is implemented. This involves assistance from the balance of Northwest Power Pool systems. Level two curtailment involves essentially the same steps in the same order as level one with the entire Northwest Power Pool participating.
| |
| If application of level one and two measures fail to resolve the problem it will be necessary to curtail customer load on an involuntary basis by individual systems. This would occur at the third level.
| |
| Level Three Curtailment Level three constitutes load shedding in a manner and sequence which will maintain the integrity of the maximum portion of the total system. Level three will be accomplished as follows:
| |
| l ~ 3 3
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER
| |
| : 1) Interrupt service to industrial customers to
| |
| ,the extent that this can be done after considering customers load and system conditions.
| |
| : 2) Interrupt service to selected distribution feeders throughout the service area for a short period of time, alternating among circuits. Service to distribution feeders should be interrupted in order of the classi-fication priority that is interrupt service to the least essential first, and so on.
| |
| Every effort. will be made to provide conti-nuous service to the essential public utilities, police, fire stations, hospitals and the like.
| |
| : 3) Records will be maintained so that during subsequent power shortages, care will be taken to locate interruptions throughout the service area in an equitable manner.
| |
| This plan has been formally adopted by the Operating Committee of the Northwest Power Pool and has been submitted via the Western Systems Coordinating Council to the Federal Power Commission in response to FPC Docket R-405.
| |
| Power cutbacks were experienced in the winters of 1972-1973 and 1973-1974 where interruptible power was curtailed so that water could be conserved for firm power requirements. The costs of these cutbacks are not known but are certainly substan-tial; obviously, this is an adverse situation.
| |
| The current power supply with its lack of thermal.
| |
| base-load generating capacity must be supplemented as soon as possible to minimize the social and economic damage to the area.
| |
| Without new thermal resources added to the region's power supply, the Pacific Northwest faces a period of many years of serious deficiency in 'capacity.
| |
| Although future regional load is expected to increase at a reduced rate, significant increases in generating capacity will be required and are scheduled. A means for reducing future deficiency; especially in 1980, 1981 and 1982, is completion of the Supply System's WNP-2. One can anticipate that any delays in the completion of this project or other planned projects, according to'urrent 1.3-4
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER forecasts, will increase the period of inadequate capacity and increase the economic impact on the area. (See Table 1.1-7)
| |
| An additional important advantage of WNP-2 is that it will improve the reliability of the area power supply. The Pacific Northwest's reliance on hydro-electric power has made it uniquely dependent upon nature.
| |
| | |
| TABLE l. 1-l(a)
| |
| PACIPIC NORTHWEST UTILITIES CONFERENCE COHHITTEE WEST GROUP AREA COHPARISON OF ACTUAL WITH ESTIHATED WINTER PEAR LOADS (HEGAWATTS)
| |
| Date of Estimate 1967-68 1968- 9 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1967 (Jan. 17) 13,919 15,021 16,021 16,922 17,427 18,809 20,285 21,675 23,083 24,519 1968 (Feb. 1) 15'32 15 ~ 943 16/927 17 ~ 377 18 848 20,487 21,772 23,086 24,664 1969 (Fcb. 15) 15,645 16,634 17,125 18,531 19,843 21,101 22,228 23,450 1970 (Jan. 15) 16,424 17,061 18,593 19,764 21,134 22,267 23 495 1971 (Jan. 1) 17,022 18,407 19,742 20,949 22,089 23,278 1972 (Feb. 1) 17,902 19,270 20,567 21,796 22,945 1973 (Feb. 1) 19,227 20,400 21,649 22,814 1974 (Peb. 1) 20,413 21,612 23,311 1975 (Peb. 1) 21,333 22,503 1976 (Har. 1) 22,080 Actual Winter Peak 13,309 15,540 15,030 15,725 16,876 18,259 18,707 18,444 19,580 21,457 1/ Hinimum temperatures of record occurred at a number of weather stations in the Pacific Northwest durinU December 1968 Source: BPA Requirements Section, unpublished data, February 7, 1978 8
| |
| '4 3 0
| |
| co
| |
| | |
| llNP-2 ER TABLE 1.1-1(b)
| |
| PACIFIC NORT!l'i(EST UTILITIES CONFERENCE COHHITTBB l'lEST GROUP AREA PERCENT DEVIATION DETl(EEN ACTUAL AND ESTIHATED HINTER PEAK FIRH LOADS 1/ 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-7'7 Date of Estimate 1967-68 1968-(39 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 2
| |
| 1967 (Jan. 17) (3.4 6.2 7.1 3.2 2.9 7.8 16.3 15.2 12.5 1968 (Peb. 1) (3.4) 5.7 7.1 2.9 3.1 8.7 16.7 15.2 13.0 1969 (Peb. 15) 4 ' 5.5 1.5 1.5 5.8 14.0 11.9 8.5 1970 (Jan. 15) 1.8 5.4 14.1 12.1 8.7 1971 (Jan. 1) 0.9 0.8 5.3 13.4 ll. 4 1972 (Feb. 1) (1.6) 3.0 1.1. 8 10.2 6.5 1973 (Peb. 1) 2.8 11.1 9.6 5.9 1974 (Peb. 1) 11.1 9.4 8.0 1975 (Peb. 1) 8.2 4.6 1976 (Har. 1) 2.8 Ql Hinimum temperatures of record occurred at a number of weather stations in the Pacific Northwest during December 1968 2/ Parentheses () indicate actual loads greater than estimated loads Source: DPA Requirements Section, unpublished data, February 7, 1978.
| |
| | |
| HHl ER TABLE 1.1-2(a)
| |
| PACIFIC NORTHWEST UTILITIES CONFERENCE COMMITTEE WEST GROUP AREA COHPARISON OF ACTUAL WITH ESTIHATED 12 HONTNS AVERAGE FIRM LOADS-(MEGAWATTS) otte of 84tfmttt 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1967 (Jan. 17) 86 888 96 562 108252 108 826 119056 ll 852 129 815 13,663 14,508 15,334 1968 (Feb. 1) 99649 106 970 104 970 1 16 215 124 1 12 13,277 14,081 14,842 15,819 1969 (Feb. 15) 106 061 109 745 1 lf020 1 16 868 129730 13 ~ 565 14,208 14,896 1970 (Jan. 15) 10,617 10,964 11,988 12,779 13,681. 14,321 15,033 1971 (Jan. 1) 10,807 11,688 12,507 13,279 13,947 14,614 1972 (Feb. 1) 11,541 12,375 13,100 13,846 14,482 1973 (Feb. 1) 12,409 13,054 13,807 14,472 1974 (Feb. 1) 12,971 13,678 14,719 1975 (Feb. 1) 13,446 14,173 1976 () lar ~ 1 ) 13,934 Actual 12-Ho. Avg. 8,722 9,628 10,101 10,537 10,694 11,321 11,703 12,329 12,836 13,299 1/ Firm loads differ from total loads by the interruptable loads supplied by BPA to large industrial customers. Firm loads are used in this comparison because of the high variability to interruptable loads Source: BPA Refluirements Section, unpublished data, February 7, 1978.
| |
| W C6.
| |
| 6D P
| |
| 'V S co v
| |
| | |
| llHP-2 ER TABLE 1.1-2(b)
| |
| PACIFIC NORTHWEST UTIl.ITIHS CONFl'.EENCE COMMITTEE WEST GROUP AREA PERCENT DEVIATION BE'IWHEN ACTUAL AND ESTIMATED 12 MONTllS AVERAGE FIRll LOADS 1/
| |
| Date of Estimate 1967-60 1960-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 2/
| |
| 1967 (Jan. 17) 1.9 (0.7T 1.5 2.7 3.3 8.7 9.8 11.5 13. 3 1968 (Feb. 1) 0.2 1.9 3.9 4.7 6.5 11.9 12.4 13.5 15.9 1969 (Feb. 15) (0.4) 1.9 3.0 4.6 9.1 9 ' 10. 7 1970 (Jan. 15) 0.8 2.5 5.6 8.4 9.9 10.4 ll. 5 1971 (Jan. 1) 1.0 3.1 6.4 7.1 8.0 9.0 1972 (Feb. 1) 1.9 5.4 5.9 7.3 8.2 1973 (Feb. 1) 5.7 5.5 7.0 8.1 1974 (Feb. 1) 4.9 6.2 9.6 1975 (Feb. 1) 4.5 6.2 1976 (Mar. 1) 4.6 1/ Minimum temperatures of record occurred at a number of weather stations in the Pacific Northwest during December 1968 2/ Parentheses () indicate actual loads greater than estimated loads Source: BPA Requirements Section, unpublished data, February 7, 1978.
| |
| c9 3 ln 9-9 Q.
| |
| % 3 M8 OO W
| |
| | |
| 'VA)3? .. l-3
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OP LOADS AND RHSOURCHS (SheeL. l oX 3)
| |
| FJ6nrcs arc Sanllary I'cak snit Contrart Yetir Energy Jn ltcgaMatts I 97 8-l9 I '179-ri'1 198'I" 81 I 9S 1-82 I 952-hl 1953-84 1984-5"i pK Avri PK AVG pK avc TK aVG AVfi PK AVG PK AVI:
| |
| Loans I SYSTEtt LOAOS I/ 24fi16 16071 ?5871 I Adair I'7228 17717 25591 18715 298/h 19505 3097 9 Z0219 3? 23'I 2997?
| |
| z ex> nvfs 7/ 2148 ris 0 209C 6?9 210s 647 17C9 4'16 I/II >39 1562 ZC3 I 563 ZOS
| |
| ~ Tof/t. Loans 26764 16721 2 7961 I/496 29l36 18404 303CO 19211 31 ri89 19844 12541 204?2 :33 tin 2 2 I I ll PESnueCES ka Iu tlYOPO 3/ 27242 116 I 2 28939 116l'3 29?46 t1677 29745 11717 ?. 9973 I 17'19 3C425 11714 30496 I I /16 5 IttnFPEUOEttT IIYORO 659 433 659 433 6'5 9 4:33 659 433 659 433 6 ri 9 4'33 6'5'I f Of AL ltYO>o 27991 12045 29598 12666 ?99en I?I IC 35tinl 12150 3C 6lZ 12142 319 84 12147 '31155 I? 14'3 7 EX ~ Stt ~ fltvtt~ I H ISC ~ 243 56 243 56 P '3 f 55 236 55 ?.36 55 236 55 236 '55 8 Cottn TttvttItlES s/ 1225 tC3 12?5 t09 I 22r. t09 1225 I C9 I izcj 109 12?5 169 I??5 I!1 9 9 IIAIIFnttn 6/ 0 515 C rt5 515 0 515 h 515 0 C 0 5 If IttrnvfS I 697 I 394 1986 1550 ZOZC 1668 1868 t5f 7 1816 1501 1757 1477 1695 I 'lib 11 rrufpaLIa 1.31 3 919 I -fl 3 919 1 313 919 1313 919 1313 919 1313 9 l 'I Iz Tpnaatt 113C 791 I 1.30 791 113" 7 'l I 1135 791 I ITC 7 tl 1130 791 I t 10 /91 I~ mt sfpfp I 33G ? "i I 1 Q 2'5 l 3'3 0 2ri I 3 3'3 2'5 I 330 251 330 251 339 ?51 I 4 lt "iP 2 C
| |
| ~ I ~ I r I IO I lfi3 f Al 110( tl:i5 IIOC I I "ie hZS 15 <<navnttas ICAoT COAL I 0 6 477 191 477 334 477 358 477 358 4'/7 358 16 cntsfrfp 3 I 4 C C h h i 74 49C 4 l5 9 tt 0 6 9.3 9An 7 lii I / ttt:P 0 0 t''
| |
| 0 h 63 1250 765 1 250 938 Witf> 4 0 0 5 0 5 C n C 0 G I 25n 437 19 ttVr'5 0 0 0 0 0 L C 0 h 62 ci 76n SKAri T f I C 5 5 0 0 C e C n e n
| |
| ? I ltttP 5 0 0 0 r 0 '5 0 0 C 0 C n
| |
| ?? PFilnLE SPPI!tGS 0 hI C e C 0 C 0 6 0 C 5 C Z.l SKAri f T 2 0 0 C 0 0 5 '1 ii G 0 0 0
| |
| ?ti liC'13LE SPR ittcs 0 0 0 r 5 0 0 C 0 n 25 rntaL eESQUQGFS $ 3 5 19 1607'i 35625 I rizh7 3~63F 16659 35086 17452 38/49 17964 4ctldz 18452 43 lhl 19l06 26 ttvn9oistt 'f ttt!I. ~ I !IIst; PFS ~ 8/ 1468 0 15 iS n 1565 1593 0 1604 0 16t! / 0 0 Og zr t.Aorf rttFttNaL pfs. go 416 n 416 0 4bh 653 0 726 0 967 0 I '368 0 rt 8 ZS PLAtt "tfttG PFSEPVES JO 533 0 872 0 I? I r 1433 0 I 895 6 2059 0 2187 0 0 29 t.r>an GvnÃ1 I< pESEpvES Qo 537 l4h 522 316 546 321 613 3'/3 555 341 593 349 625 b A 3c 9E AL I zaf lott Far Tntt 9/ 9?9 0 15"7 9 1509 0 1034 I C4'5 e 1068 e I '1/?
| |
| 8 9 31 Uvttvn <<A)ttTEtlattcE 5'3 ri3 ri3 57 8 10/ C 0 5'5 0 53 C '1 I rt.
| |
| lz npa tttt-stt fttTEpf TE LnssEs JJ/ 54 20 84 PQ 84 ZC 57 lt 57 t 5C 0 rib 0 ttf f eESnuttCES Z9872 15661 31'3) I 15598 31731 I fi?65 32/06 17013 '3286 7 I 7'569 34498 18049 36456 19?SC 14 SttttPLUs OP nf'.F fc IT 31CS -1060 3410 -159S Z395 -2 I '39 2406 -Zt tbi I zlb -22/5 -2373 2 654 -1897 l5 'lPA I!to IttTEPkUPT IRLE JZ/ 983 '196 1037 I C3'5 I I I" I I0 1 I I 13 1115 106'5 1065 1075 1075 1085 1085
| |
| | |
| 'IDLE 1.1-3 (Sht et 2 of 3)
| |
| Flgurea arc January Peak an>l Contract Tear Energy )n )toga>>acre 1985-86 1986-57 1987-55 1985-Se 1959-90 199') -91 I 19)-ez PK AVG AVr, PX AVG PK AVG PK AVI'>> AVr, pK Avri LOA')S I SYSTEN LOAOS 33511 ?1751 34 85:I ZZr50 Tazee 21393 37740 2i> 271 )9249 ?518? 40513 26125 42 )47 27C SC
| |
| ? EXP>)RTS 1565 207 989 ZC9 24h ZCI 106 174 106 I l4 103 171 101 Ii I 3 TOTAL LOAOS 35076 2lo5S 35S42 227re 36 "i43 23594 37846 Zi>445 25356 4cet6 2 6291 42459 272 I I RESOURCES
| |
| >IAIN NVeoo 30535 11697 30 5'54 I 16o6 30607 11680 3061 5 11674 '50613 11674 XhelS I t 674 'I061'I I If>>74 5 'I:t<<EPEtiOENT HYOOO 659 433 659 433 659 433 659 43 i 659 6'5 9 433 >>5 9 4t3 6 tnt AL HYOPO )1197 IZ I)9 '11193 12129 31?6(. 12113 3127? 121 CI 'll 27? lzt07 31272 12107 'tl >72 12117 7 EX ~ SH TII44a t >IISC>> 225 51 2?5 53 22'5 53 225 53 22'5 53 225 r>>3 ? 2'5 5 'i 8 Cn>t I tit>><<INES 1225 109 I 2?5 Ice 12Z5 109 1225 Ice 1225 109 1225 109 I?25 I ')9 9 NANFORO 0 0 C 0 C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 i>> i>
| |
| IC l>>PORTS ) eza 1318 1557 11hZ 1479 S90 1396 eiI3 I 14? 6CZ 1025 507 907 447 Il rENTRALIA 1313 919 1313 919 l)13 919 1313 919 1313 ele 13)3 919 131) 9 I <3 12 t>>n Jhtt 1 130 791 1130 79I I>3P 791 1130 l91 1130 79) 1130 7'3 t I)TO 751 13 rnISforr I t 2 33C 251 ) I I) Zr>> I 3')0 251 33) 2<1 130 251 3:IC 251 >)1 I I 4 H>>P I ICC 825 I IQP 525 I IOC 525 1101 SP5 t 100 525 1100 8?5 1 103 5~5 15 <<na>In~AN ICARtv COAL) 47l 35S 477 358 477 %58 477 )55 477 358 477 35h 477 >r>>8 16 COL'itolP ~ C 4 98C 7 3f>> 980 7~6 JSC 716 980 73 930 l36 980 lx6 ') 8') 7X6 H>>i I 1250 938 12SC 9'> 5 1250 9) 5 I 25') 935 )25" 9)h IZSC 9'ta IP50 4 >iP i>> 125C hen 1250 9YS 125C 935 !250 935 125C 9th 1250 9'> Q I 25') 9th 19 MNP 1240 930 1240 930 I 24i; 93" 1240 930 1240 930 124C 930 1241 <<$ il
| |
| ?0 SKA'>IT I 1258 773 1288 966 IZSS 966 1288 966 1255 966 1?ah 966 I?88 966 ZI HNP 5 1240 434 1240 553 124C 930 1240 9'I0 124C I3 t I?40 9%C I 24>>3 9xn ZZ PF11LF SPPINr>>S I 0 189 I 260 803 (?f>h 945 I 26') 945 1260
| |
| >'i>5 IZ60 945 I 261 ')45
| |
| : 2) SKAiilt 0 n 0 0 izah 7 l.t 1288 9 6f>> 1288 966 l?58 966 12itd 9A6
| |
| ?4 .FOSLE sperNGs z 0 0 C 1 0 I >Ie I 26'1 SOS 1260 94 r> I 26'J 945
| |
| ?5 t:)TAL RESOURCES 455la 21614 47058 22761 45341 23465 4S264 23634 492?C 24167 49156 74?I 4 49<>5 Z4)'54 26 HVU.O ~ SN TP>IL ~ C I I >C ~ PFS ~ 1632 C 163? 0 1636 0 I 636 0 1636 1636 0 16>6 5 Zl LANCE fHEPHtL PES, 174C >I 1929 0 ?.122 0 Zl 22 0 2311 0 2111 2311 0 Zh "LA'INliiG PESEPVES 2360 0 27xl 0 ?814 0 ')0 78 0 3164 n 3461 0 571 > 0 29 LOAO G>>OH)4 PESEPVES 615 .')77 679 394 687 411 712 42~ 739 43S 755 450 iIC7 473 vn PEAL T?ATTOtt FACTOP 1074 0 I Clio 0 1077 1078 C 1078 0 IC75 0 I ".78 31 ><YORO HATtifF>IAtJCE I; 58 0 58 C 5a ~i >I C ri I C <I 1 SI
| |
| 'tz>>H>>A NH-SH TNTEPtlE'OSSES 50 0 Pf 1 I C 0 II 0 C C 0 C
| |
| : 3) NET RESOIJPCES 38382 2117'I 359&7 '2 2309 40nQ4 22996 39638 23153 ii0342 23678 39915 2 3713 39488 236TC 34 SIJ>)PLUS OR OEFICIT 3306 -l79 314r -598 I 79? - I 292 -16 78 -1001 -2575 -? 162 -36? I npA ltio INTERpupTI<<LE 1095 1095 110'5 I I C5 1115 1115 I I zr> 1125 1135 1145 1145 I 15>> 1155
| |
| | |
| TABLE . 1-3 (Sheet 3 of 3)
| |
| PIS>>rea arc Jan>>ary Peak and Contract Year Energy ln tteaa>>attn 1992-93 199:5-94 1995-96 1996-97 I 99'7-9 8 PK AVG PK AVG PK AUI> PK AVG PK AVG PK AVG LOA3S I SYSTFH LOAOS 4405C ZAQ sr 45818 29153 47659 5025'I 49607 31410 5tf>30 32625 53752 3'3099 2 EXI ORrs 133 IT I 172 103 211 103 239 122 327 IZZ 327 TOTAL LOAOS 44153 2S250 45921 29325 t>7762 30i4 7C 49713 31649 5176C 32952 5 <h/4 342?6 RESOuoCES HAI>l HYGRO 30613 II 674 '>
| |
| 0613 11674 'Por>13 11674 3oe 13 11614 3C61 '3 11674 30613'1614 5 It>OEPEt>OEttl 4YOco 659 433 659 433 659 433 659 433 659 433 659-: 433 6 rnraL IIVORO '31272 1210 T 31272 12107 3lzrz Izlcr 31272 IZICT 31272 Iztor 31272 I ZI "7 7 fX ~ S>t I 4>>H A H'ISf ~ 225 225 225 53 225 225 53 725 5't 8 coH9 ruRRIHEs 1225 IC9 1225 109 IZ?5 In9 1225 IC9 1225 109 1225 In 9 9 Ha>IFOoO 0 0 >> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C I ". I <>>0 or 9 777 '314 636 249 484 I Zt 321 Tr 240 67 ?40 67 I I CE>tr'MALTA 1313 91'I 1313 919 1313 919 1313 919 I<I~ 1313 91'I IZ rooJAtt 1 130 791 1130 7'I I 113C 791 1130 7'9 I 1 130 791 1130 I 5 coLsrr'Ip I c I'50 251 3$ ~
| |
| 251 330 251 333 251 '530 251 V36 ?51 RttP I!00 825 I IQC 875 ! ICC 875 I 161 a25 I IQG 8? '5 IICO A 25 IoaanHatt IcaRrv coaL) 477 35A 477 7 "> tl 477 358 477 358 arr 158 471 358 Ir.. roLsrprp ~ I 4 9SC r36> 9QC 7 6 986 736 980 TV6 'th>G 7 Xf> OhC '13e 17 MttP I 1250 93S 1250 93S I 25C 9~8 1250 938 125C 9'I 8 1250 930 I h Ntlo I 2 ">0 938 1250 9~8 I 25O 93S 1259 9~8 1750 938 1250 930 19 MH>> ~ 124C 93C 1240 9>Q I Z40 933 1240 9'>0 124C 9'30 1240 930 ZQ SKAGIT I I?88 966 IZSO 966 I? Sh 96f> I zrs 966 1288 966 126S 9!>6 2 I Vttn 5 1240 930 1240 i) 3 ) I 24C 931 I 24'I 930 1240 930 t 240 930 22 PE'lhLF SPRrtlGS I 126C 'l45 I Zr>0 945 I?6C 945 1263 945> I 26" il4 n> I zfio 945 c SKAGIT ? lzaa 96r> 1280 966 Izbb 966 IZas 966 1288 966 IZSS 966 24 PE.OBLF Sno IHriS Z 1260 945 1260 945 IZr,n 1260 945 I 2ric 945 12f>C 945 25 totaL KEsnuRrfs 4a905 24021 48764 23956 4aelz 23A?h 48449 23780 403ea 23774 48340 23rr4
| |
| ?r. HYGRO ~ S.". THHL.T 'trsc ofs ~ 1636 0 1636 0 1636 0 1636 0 I 631> 1636 0 0 J 27 LA<0>E THERHAL RES~ 2 311 0 23II 0 23I I 0 2311 0 2311 0 2311 0 13 zh PI.ANH'Illo RESERVE>I 4024 Q >>342 0 4658 5001 0 5%75 0 5758 n I I fO 79 LOAO GRO>trt> RESERVES 8:19 501 875 521 92r 545 9t>7 574 1006 694 1045 6~5
| |
| >>EALI7Al lot> ~ACTOo 1078 0 1078 0 I hrh I Crh C lorh 0 1010 0 f
| |
| 31 I> VO>tO>>a I tt r tt At>CE 0 51 n
| |
| C 51 51 3 <<I C 51 r, 0 n 37 RPA t>W-SH IIITCRTTF LOSSES 0 0 C 0 3 r. C 33;>Er >>FROu>>CES 39017 Z'3469 3 h522 3AQCZ 23232 37450 23155 56962 Z3119 36540 23088 Stt>>f>Llts OR Of F IC I T -5136 -4 rhn 5941 -9rr,n -723h -122fh -h4'94 -14198 -9833 -17334-11138 RPA Itto I>trER>>ttPTI>ILF. 1164 1165 1 174 1174 IIA4 1184 1194 I 19'3 I 20'4 1203 1214 1213
| |
| | |
| FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE l. 1-3 Area loads aze est~ted firm loads of private utility and publ'c agency systems, Federal agencies, and BPA industrial customers.
| |
| BPA industrial customer loads also include interruptible loads.
| |
| Loads also include area transmission losses.
| |
| . 2/ Exports includ. deliveries to California utilities under the CSPE agreement, peak/energy exchange contracts with PSW, transfers of Centralia powez to Central Valley Project, WWP Co. contracts with Utah, Idaho, and Montana Power Companies, PSP&L Co. contracts with Utah Power Co. and Salt River Project, PGE Co. contracts with Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and Southern CaLifozaia Edison Co.,
| |
| Eugene Water and Electric Board contracts with Southern California Municipalities, BPA contracts with Yuntana Power Co. (M.P. Co.)
| |
| for geographic preference, wheeling paymaats, Hanford-NPR exchange, Hanford-NPR extension, WNP No. 1 deliveries, and M.P. Co's. share of restoration from the West Group Area as per Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreemeat, 3/ Hydro resources are the same as those shown in the 1978 West Croup Forecast Report.
| |
| 4/ Existing small thermal and miscellaneous includes old existing steam plants, small diesel generators, and miscellaneous small industrial purchases.
| |
| 5/ Combustion turbines include PP&L's Libby unit, PGE's Bethe',
| |
| Harborton,'nd Beavez units, PSP&L's Whicibey Island and Whitehora units, and WWP's Othello and Northeast units.
| |
| 6/ Haaford-NPR operation is. based on gross production oC 4.5 billion kilowatt<<hours per year in 1978-79 through 1982-83. The plant is considered not dependable as a peakiag resource.
| |
| 7/ orts include energy returned to the PNW from peak/energy excnange contracts with PSW utilities, PGE Co. contract with Southern Cali-fornia Edison Co., PP&L Co. transfers from PP&I Co. Wyoming Divi-sion, PSP&L Co. contract with Montana and U~~ Power Companies and Salt River Project, WWP Co. contracts with-Montana and Idaho Power Companies, and EW&EB contracts with Southern California Municipali ies.
| |
| Total reserve requirements on peak are based on 12 percent of the total area loads for the first yeaz, increasing at a rate of one percent per year up to 20 percent, and remaining at 20 percent thereafter. Reserve requirements oa energy are based on one-half year's load growth of utility-type loads. Reserves are broken dawn into major components.
| |
| 9/ Realization factor is the adjustmeat to the Federal hydro peaking capability to reflec inability of the Federal system to achieve its full p aking capability at any one specific instance.
| |
| 10/ Hydro maintenance on energy is the estimated maintenance 'requi ed during the critical stozage period and is tne same as shown in the 1977 West Group Forecast report. Peak hydra maintenance is included with the peak forced outage reserves.
| |
| BPA's N!1'-SW Intertie 'ossa" are associated with deliveries ove the Intertie under coatzacts 4th Pacific Southwest. utilities.
| |
| 1.2/ BPA industrial interzuptible loads are se ~ed directly by BPA and are included 'n Line ~
| |
| above. Line losses associated with the intezruptible loads are not included.
| |
| Amendment 2
| |
| | |
| TABLE 1. 1-4 WEST GROUP I ARGE THERMAL ADDITIONS BASED ON SCHEDULED DATES OP COMMERCIAL OPERATION (I)
| |
| CAPACITY IN MEGAWATTS ENERGY IN A VERAGE MEGAWATTS ynu a l.nal I naJ 19/I 19UO I OUI IaJU2 I J>al IUU4 IUUb 19>>4 1907 I aJUU )9&I Jun>> ) 0 I/1 hv Lik hv I'k hv lak hv Iuh />v I'k Av 0 .
| |
| hv I'L Av I'k hv Iak hv Ua>ua aalu.>n (Oua I y) 4'I'I 2u& I2 IUII' ~ I IOO 550 24U 2I ak>la Ia a)a - 'Ia4 4JU 74 490 4 16 145 au>a -) a a 1250 4 lu 12bu 62 764 )09 IIIII'-365 l/bo 7/I 55U 1240 744 uk>>u)a LL2 . ~ 12UU 773 )93 12UU I/I I'a:14>lu a)I>rin>JO-I a2 )uaJ 1260 756 IU9 I>uulnnul Tuaulua hnnua>I 15'I I U16 I /40 0 l2 490 J41 249>> 675 1324 2520 IU15 124U I I ab )2I>U 7/I IU5 Oauau 1u a I va> 15'l7 aa I4 1'll I 16> 9 IUU7 261) 62ll7 32JU 6297 44)4 0025 642 J IU,QUb 'l544 I I ~ I I J 0 1 17 I I, 370 0526 I'u)>lin huunuy Vuaa>)ua hnnuu) 1100 550 1250 496 5// Jllu LUI I lb I )116 7'l9 IU9 I a 'I 0 109 Oa>wulna lvu l lou 55u 2'150 123( 2/50 I /43 444u 2UUI, 444u )249 55u4 4022 5 l73 bu40 52'I) bu60 5777 6049 II) - Uaua:al <<n I/uul. >a>un)> L'uruuuul 3-1 70
| |
| | |
| TABLE 1.1-5 WEST GROUP LARGE THERMAL ADDITIONS BASED ON PROBABLE ENERGY DATE (1)
| |
| PEAK CAPACITY IN MEGAWATTS ENERGY IN AVERAGE MEGAWATTS Uuur Lwillws lo I'k 19 Is I'k 19UO hv I'k I JUI I <JUI I'k 9UI l<JU4 1 ~ i Av I'k 1906 I'k 1 9U'I IUUU
| |
| 'v I'k 1909 Bawau Av hv j'L Av Av hv Av Av Ok Av Iwia ralwan ICur 4 Q I 47'I 101 141 24 IUII' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ IIU IIOU 570 Culntrila - ll4 4iJ0 160 490 ?5iJ IIII I'- I l I 6? L?50 'l04 1250 610 422 70 IIIIU 715 6? 1240 CiJU l?40 604 4IU lo Oku<J I L-Il2 l?UU 77) IiJ3 l?UU 171 19$
| |
| 'UU I'ul lalu ot<rlw<JU-ll? IUS I <CO 614 142 lcuQlcinal 7'aatalac AIII<aluI ~ 477 JUI lloo IJ5 490 503 1740 1025 2490 1351 25?U 1900 1260 I"IQI l?QQ 993 O IU?
| |
| Cwwa I I a I. I vu 47'I 'JOI 157'I lOSt 2Ot7 16IS 3007 2704 62S7 4055 UU?5 6043 10,005 I146 ll,ill UIJ9 Il I I I
| |
| ~ QI? I I'wlilI c: A<J<<caw@ 'fululwc AIIII II <I I 1100 5'IU IUJ 1250 74'I 2110 1099 1116 J60 109 546 I 20
| |
| ''I?3
| |
| ~ ~ <J Ciwwclal.lvcc I IUO 5'IU lloo 7I'I ?150 15?4 4460 2621 5504 54?U 57'I l 974 5'l73 CUI 6093 III Uauag awa Iluwl Ciruuli I'urouawC 3 I-IU
| |
| | |
| TABLE 1.1-6 PUBLIC AGENCY BPA ENERGY RESOURCES AND REQUIREMENTS (Average Megawatts)
| |
| Probable Ener Date Scheduled Date Estimated Estimated """-'stimated Unsatisfied Resources Unsatisfied Unsatisfied Year Ending June 30 Requirements (1)
| |
| Resources (1)
| |
| Unsatisfied WPPSS No. 2 Requirements c' (Adjusted)
| |
| (2)
| |
| Requirements (3)
| |
| WPPSS c' """
| |
| Requirements 10,490 490
| |
| '979 10,980 10,490 490 490 1980 11,453 10i620 833 833 10g602 833 1981 12,214 10,809 1,405 110 1,515 11,259 550 1,505 1982 12,725 11,266 1,459 687 2,146 11,379 1,346 798 2,144 1983 13,016 11,376 1,640 825 2,465 11,750 1,266 825 2,091 1984 13,290 11,771 1,519 825 2,344 12,237 1,053 825 1,878 1985 13,666 12,866 800 825 1,625 13,272 394 825 1,219 1986 14,045 13,811 234 825 1,059 14,168 (123) 825 702 1987 14,435 14,205 230 825 1,055 14,274 161 825 986 1988 14,858 14,080 778 825 lg603 14,080 778 825 1,603 1989 15,294 14,080 1,214 825 2,039 14,080 1,214 825 2,039 (1) Blue Book Table 2 adjusted for duplication in Federal and public Agency values.
| |
| (2) Adjusted for difference in added resources between Probable Energy Date and Scheduled Date.
| |
| (3) () denotes surplus resource over requirements Amendment 3 January l979
| |
| | |
| TABLE 1. l-7 WEST GROUP ENERGY RESOURCES AND REQUIREMENTS (Average Megawatts)
| |
| Probable Ener Date Scheduled Date Unsatisfied Unsatisfied Estimated Unsatisfied Unsatisfied Estimated Estimated Requirement Requirement Resources Requirement Requirement Year Ending Requirements Resources With WPPSS WPPSS Without Ad)usted Hith WPPSS WPPSS Without June 30 (1) (2) No. 2 No. 2 HPPSS No. 2 (3) No. 2 No. 2 HPPSS No. 2 1979 16i721 15,661 1,060 lg060 15,661 1,060 1980 17g496 15 p 89() lg 598 1,598 15 g 898 1,598 1981 18 '04 16'65 2,139 110 2g2$ 9 16g800 1;604 550 2,154 1982 19,211 17,013 2,198 687 2,885 17,148 2,063 798 2,861 1983 19,844 17,569 2,275 825 3,100 17,943 1,901 825 2,726 1984 20,422 18,049 2I373 825 3,198 18,515 1,907 825 2I732 1985 21,177 19,280 1,897 825 2I722 19,686 1,491 825 2,316 1986 21,958 21,179 779 825 .1,604 21,474 825 1,309 1987 22,759 22,309 450 825 1,275 22,386 373 825 1,198 1988 23,594 22i996 598 825 lg423 22,996 598 825 1,423 1989 24,445 23,153 1,292 825 2gll7 23,153 li292 825 2, 117 (1) Prom 1978 Blue Book, Table 1, Line 3 (2) From 1978 Blue Book, Table 1, Line 33 (3) Estimated Resources adjusted from Probable Energy Date to Scheduled Date.
| |
| Amendment 3 January 1979
| |
| | |
| TABLE 1.1-8 WEST GROUP CAPACITY (PEAK) RESOURCES AND REQUIREMENTS (Megawatts)
| |
| Probable Ener Date Scheduled Date Unsatisfied Unsatisfied Unsatisfied Requirement Estimated Unsatisfied Requirements Estimated Estimated Requirements Without Resources Requirement Without Year Ending Requirements Resources With WPPSS WPPSS WPSS No. 2 Adjusted With WPPSS WPPSS 'WPPSS No.2 June 30 ~ (1) ~2> No. 2 (4) No. 2 (4) ~3) No. 2 (4) No. 2 (4) 1979 26,764 29,872 (3,100) (3,108) 29t872 (3,100) (3,108) 1900 27i961 31,371 (3, 410) (3,410) 31,371 (3,,410) (3,410) 1981 29,336 31,731 (2,395) (2,395) 32,031 (3,495) 1,100 (2,395) 1902 30,300 32,706 (2,406) 1,100 (1,306) 32,706 (2,406) 1,100 (1,306) 1903 31,589 32,067 (1,270) 1,100 (178) 3,4117 (2,520) 1,100 (1,428) 1904 32,541 34,490 (1,957) 1,100 (057) 35,730 (3,197) 1,100 (2,097) 1905 33,002 36,456 (2,654) 1,100 (1,554) 36,456 (2,654) 1,100 (1,554) 1986 35,076 38,382 (3,306) 1, 100 (2,206) 30,382 (3,306) 1,100 (2,206) 1907 35,842 38,907 (3,145) 1,100 (2,045) 38,907 (3,145) 1, 100 (2,045) 1908 36,543 40,004 (3,461 1,100 (2,361) 40,004 (3,461) 1,100 (2,361) 1909 37,046 39,638 (1,792) 1,100 (692) 39,630 (1,792) 1,100 (692)
| |
| (1) Prom 1970 Blue Book, Table 1, Line 3 (2) Prom 1978 Blue Book, Table 1, Line 33 (3) Estimated Resources adjusted from Probable Energy Date to the Scheduled Date.
| |
| (4) () Indicates surplus over requirements Amendment 3 January 1979
| |
| | |
| PNN-WEST GROUP AREA MW(0001 26 24 22 20 EXTREMELY aa COLD WEATHER aaaa 18 geog
| |
| ~yg18 ACTU Al.
| |
| 16 1967 E STlM TE 12 10 0
| |
| 1967-1968 1970-1971 1973-1974 1976- 1977 Amendment 2, October 1978 HKSHibiGTON PUSLiC POOF~ SUPPLY SYSTK4 ESTZKKTED VERSUS ACTUAL NZNTER FZRi~j NPPSS ÃJCLZAR PROJZCT NO. 2 PEAK LOADS Znv~rozxental Report PNN-WF. T - T >
| |
| FZG.
| |
| | |
| KSTIIIA7%9 VS. ACTUAL AQMUAI. AVKRAGK I:IRS I.QAQS PNW-WEST GROUP AREA MW(000) 18 16 1967 ESTlMATE
| |
| ~a~
| |
| 12 ACTUAL 10 0
| |
| 19 67-1968 1970-1971 197 3-1 97 4 197 6-1 97 7 Amendment 2, October 1978 HASBENGTON PUBLEC POWER SUPPLY S'EST~ ESTENATED VERSUS ACTUAL ANNUAL WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJZCT NO. 2 AVER9.GE FiRN LOADS Environmental Report D FIG. 1. 1 2
| |
| | |
| U. S. EI PNW (WEST GROUP AREA) ENERGY LOADS 10.000 I I 9,000 I I I I I
| |
| 8,000 I I I
| |
| 7.000 I I I I I I I 8.O00 I I I I l i l HAT)OHaL I
| |
| I
| |
| )978 - 1995 1,000 I I I I I I I
| |
| 900 I I I I )
| |
| co 800 Z I I I I I 0 700 I I I I I I I i
| |
| I (2) I PNW I
| |
| I I
| |
| 1978 ~ 1995 100 I I I 50 I I I I 80 I I I 70 50 1978 1980 1982 1984 1988 1988 1990 1992 1994 1995 YEAR ll ELECTRICALWOR LO, SEPT. 15, 1977
| |
| : 2) BLUE oOOIC 1978 ~ 79 THROUGH 1997 ~ 98 Amendment 2, October 1978 WSEZHGTOM PUBLZC POWER SUPPLY SYSTK4 U.S. & PNN (NEST GROUP AREA) PEAK LOADS NPPSS NUCLZAR PROJZCT NO. 2
| |
| -nvirormen~~l Report PZG-
| |
| | |
| OTHER PNW Electric Energy Requirements 250
| |
| ,'.:,INDUSTRIAL'; 200 Y.
| |
| U Q
| |
| 150 co Z
| |
| O 100 RESIDENTIAL 0
| |
| 1955 1965 1975 19&5 1995 WASHINGTON PUBLIC PO~ SUPPLY SYSTKK ELECTRIC ENERGY REQU1REMENTS BY Y WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 CONSUMER CATEGORIES PACIFIC NORT T Environmental Report (WEST GRO P FIG. 1.1-4
| |
| | |
| Factors Causing Increase in Energy Sales to 35 Domestic Consumers in PNW 1950 1973 .M)K PNW - WEST GROUP AREA
| |
| , 10.9 AMOUNT OF ENERGY SALES OUE TO:
| |
| 8.1 ELEC. SPACE HEAT
| |
| ~LUMP:~j INCREASE IN USE PER CONSUMER OTHER THAN ELEC SPACE HEAT Z INCREASE IN NO. OF CUSTOMERS 20 r ISEO USE EXCLUOING SPACE HEAT :.~i(',"a(j
| |
| "&12.
| |
| '5 0 EO Z
| |
| O 15 1)~'EN Cl 2.5 YCP'.I:.".'.
| |
| 10 4iwkg Ng'V.
| |
| 4.3 PN:
| |
| g::1.6@ ~Ay.?@g 5.1 6.1 5.1 S.l 0
| |
| 1950 1970 1973 WASHXNGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM FACTORS CAUSING INCREASE IN ENERGY WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 SALES TO DOMESTIC CONSUMERS IN WEST Environmental Report GROUP OF PNW 1950 1973 FXG. 1.1-5
| |
| | |
| XcoQ QUlN IOO 90 f MQ5 Q" 80 ANNUAL LOAD DURATION CURVE Q Pl Q 4 ncaa P +CI 70 rt R M Q P 60 0
| |
| 0 50 AVERAGE HYDRO ENERGY 12090 MW z
| |
| 40 APPROXIMATE DURATION CURVE FOR TOTAL LARGE TERMAL PLANT 30 WNP ¹2 20 AVERAGE THERMAL ENERGY IO 4941 MW H 0 Q
| |
| IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 IOO PERCEN T OF TIME
| |
| | |
| EXPECTED RESERVES 25 EST IMATEO RESERVcS rWITHOUT NNP 2 20 N OESIREO RESERVES C
| |
| yi I
| |
| 10 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1988 1987 1988 1989 YEAR ENOING JUNE EO Amendment 2, October 1978 NRSHZFiGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM ESTIMATED CAPACITY RESERVES HPPSS NUCLEAR PROX CT NO.~ 2 1979-1989 Environmental. Ressort
| |
| ~
| |
| F XG. 1.1-7
| |
| | |
| TOTAL ENERGY DEFICIT
| |
| ~ FIRM ENERGY OEFICIT W/0 WN P 2 1500 1000 FIRh1 ENFRGY OEFICIT WITH WNP.2 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 i!I 1985 1987 YEAR 8EGINING JULY I Amendment 2, October 1978 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POSER SUPPLY SYSTK4 ESTIHATEO ENERGY RESERVES HPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 1978-1987 Environmental Report FIG ~ 1.1-8
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER CHAPTER 2 THE SITE AND ENVIRONMENT INTERFACES 2.1 GEOGRAPHY AND DEMOGRAPHY 2.1.1 Site Location and Descri tion h
| |
| 2.1.1.1 S ecifi,cation of Location The Washington Public Power Supply System's (WPPSS or the Supply System) Nuclear Project No.' (WNP-2) is on property leased from the United States Department of Energy (DOE) (formerly the Energy Research and Development Administration) within the Hanford Site in the south-eastern part of the State of Washington (See Figure 2.1-1). The Han-ford Site is comprised of 134 square miles (86,050 acres) in Grant and Franklin Counties, and 425 square miles (271,930 acres) in Benton County (See Figure 2.1-2).
| |
| WNP-2 is located in Section 5 of Township 11 north, Range 28 east, Willamette Meridian. The center of the primary containment vessel is located at latitude 46o 28'8" N and longitude 119o 19'8" W.
| |
| The approximate Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates are 5,148,840 meters north and 320,930 meters east. The plant is approximately 3 1/4 miles west of the Columbia River.
| |
| WNP-2 is 12 miles north of the center of Richland, Washington, the nearest incorporated community. Approximate airline distances from the site to major cities in the Pacific Northwest are listed in the foll owing table.
| |
| Directi on Distance Cit From Site From Site Spokane, Washington Northeast 120 mi1 es Butte, Montana East 330 miles Walla Walla, Washington Southeast 55 mi 1 es Boise, Idaho Southeast 260 miles Portland, Oregon West-Southwest 180 miles Yakima, Washington West 55 miles Seattle, Washington Hest-Northwest 160 miles Vancouver, British Columbia Northwest 260 miles Within the Hanford Site, WNP-2 is 18 miles southeast of the Hanford Generating Project and 2 3/4 miles northeast of the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) which is under construction for DOE. WPPSS Nuclear Projects Nos. 1 and 4 (WNP-1/4) are under construction 0.9 miles 2.1-1 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER east-southeast and 0.8 miles east-northeast of WNP-2, respectively.
| |
| The H. J. Ashe Substation is located 0.5 miles north of WNP-2 (See Figure 2. 1-3) . l The site is about 11 miles north of the Richland Airport and 18 miles northwest of both Vista Airport near Kennewick and the Tri-Cities Airport near Pasco. The Tri-Cities and the Richland Airports have regularly scheduled coranercial airline service. Hughes Air West 4 serves the Tri-Cities Airport and Cascade Airways services both
| |
| ~
| |
| airports.
| |
| Adjacent to the WNP-2 site but not within the confi nes of the plant boundary, is a 9-acre burial site containing radioactive waste matter disposed by the Atomic Energy Commission (See Figure 2.1-3). Known as the Wye Burial Ground, the area is appropriately marked and will be adequately secured. The area is under the control of the DOE waste management program and is not considered a hazard to the public nor to the plant's operation. Neither the public nor the WNP-2 operating personnel will have access to this burial site.
| |
| 2.1.1.2 Site Area The Washington Public Power Supply System has leased from DOE 1089 acres of which approximately.202 acres will be modified by construc-tion activities. Of these, only about 30 acres will be used for WNP-2 structures and auxiliary facilities during its operation. The remain-ing 1059 acres will remain or will be returned to their natural state.
| |
| The plant property line is shown in Figure 2.1-3. In addition, Figure 2.1-4 and 3.1-1 show the location of pertinent structures, facilities and the railroad spur linking the site with the Burlington Northern Railroad at Richland.
| |
| The site area, as defined by the tract of land over which WPPSS will
| |
| 'control access of individuals consists of the plant property and the area included within the exclusion area (See Figure 2.1-3). Part of the exclusion area is beyond the property line of WNP-2 and its con-trol is discussed in greater detail in sub-section 2.1.2. The site area is entirely within the boundaries of DOE's Hanford Site.
| |
| The site is situated near the middle of a relatively flat, essentially featureless plain which is best described as a desert shrub-steppe with sage brush and bitter brush interspersed with native perennial and alien cheat grasses extending in a northerly, westerly and south-erly direction for several miles. On the east, the site is bounded by the Columbia River., The plain is characterized by slight topographic
| |
| : 2. 1-2 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER relief with a maximum relief across the plant site of approximately ten feet, and a plant site grade level of 441 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) (See Figuurre"2.1.4).
| |
| As shown in Figure 2.1-3, the exclusion area is a circle with its center at the reactor and a radius of 1950 meters., This area meets the 10CFR Part 100.11(a)(1) criteria. Industrial facilities located in the site area are the WNP-1/4 projects, the H.J. Ashe Substation, and a permanent meteorological tower. An Emergency Response/Plant Support Facility is planned for a location 3/4 mile southwest of the plant on WPPSS property. Highway and railway facilities near the site area are shown in Figures 2.1-3, 2.1-5 and 2.1-6.
| |
| 2.1.1.3 Boundaries for Establishin Effluent Release Limits
| |
| . An area slightly larger than one square mile has. been established as the limit of the restricted area for which radiation concentrations have been calculated in conformance with. 10CFR Part 20.106(a). The restricted area includes the WNP-2 plant and facilities, meteor-ological tower, a portion of the main railroad line and access road, as well as the Wye Burial Ground (See Figure 2.1-3). The plant's effluent release points are shown in Figures 3.1-6.
| |
| 2.1.2 Exclusion Area Authorit and Control 2.1.2.1 ~Authorit A letter from the DOE Richlang gperations office to the Managing Director of the Supply System(>) advises that DOE has the authority to sell or lease land on the Hanford Site. The letter further states as follows:
| |
| "This authority is contained in Section 120 of the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955, as amended, and Section 161G of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as'mended. There is also general federal disposal authority available under the Federal Property Admin-istrative Ser vices Act of 1949, as amended."
| |
| As shown in Figure 2.1-3, the 1950 meter radius exclusion area does extend outside the plant property at several locations. All land outside the plant property but within the exclusion area is managed by DOE as part of the Hanford Site. In recognition of requirements spec-ified in 10CFR 100.3(a), that require a licensee to have control over access to the 'exclusion area, the following terms have been made a part of the site property lease, agreement between the Supply System and DOE. guoting from page 8, item 7 "Exclusion Area":
| |
| 2.1-3 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER "The Commission recognizes the exclusion area as provided for in the operating license and will undertake no action or activity which would interfere with or restrict the Supply System's right to fully comply with this condition of the operating license."
| |
| Any actions taken within the exclusion area but outside the plant property are under the control of DOE. All rail shipments on the track which traverses the property are also under control of DOE and are also subject to the above quoted provisions of the Lease.
| |
| The only roads which traverse the exclusion area are the .WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 access roads shown in Figure 2.1-3. Access by land from outside of the Hanf ord Site to the project site is by other DOE roads. Travel within the exclusi on area on the access road will be restricted by the. Washington Public Power Supply System.
| |
| In the event that evacuation or other control of the exclusion area should become necessary, appropriate notice will be given to the DOE-Richland Operations Office for control of non-Supply System originated activities.
| |
| : 2. 1-4 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL The above provisions provide the necessary assurances that the exclu-sion area will be properly controlled. If at some time in the future, the Supply System should decide that an easement would be useful in ensuring continued control, there is a provision in Paragraph 5(b) of the lease as follows:
| |
| "Subject to the provisions of Section 161(q) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Commission has authority to grant easements for the rights-of-way for roads, transmission lines and for any other purpose and agrees to negotiate with the Supply System for such rights-of-way over the Hanford Operations Area as are necessary to service the Leased Premises."
| |
| Pursuant to this provision, the Supply System could obtain from DOE an easement over the exclusion area in question which would assure that neither the construction of permanent structures nor the conducting of activities inconsistent with the exclusion area would be carried on therein.
| |
| 2.1.2.2 Control of Activities Unrelated to Plant 0 er ation The exclusion area will encompass the WPPSS Nuclear Projects Nos. 1 and 4, their respective access roads, and the H. J. Ashe Substation.
| |
| Other than these facilities there are no activites unrelated to the operation of WNP-2 within the exclusion area. Both WNP-1 and 4 and their respective access roads (see Figure 2.1-3), will be owned and operated by WPPSS. The H. J. Ashe Substation will be owned by the Bonneville Power Administration and is considered a part of WNP-2 nor-mal operation.
| |
| 2.1.3 Po ulation Distribution Table 2.1-1 presents the compass sector population estimates for 1980 and the forecasts for the same compass sectors by decade from 1990 to 2030.* Cumulative totals are also shown in Table 2.1-1. This table may be keyed to Figures 2.1-7 and 2.1-8 which show the sectors and major population centers within 10 and 50 miles of the site. The pop-ulation centers, within 50 miles of the site are the Tri-City area of Population estimates out to 50 miles were derived to serve the licensing requirements of WNP-l, 2, and 4. Therefore, estimates were made relative to the centroid of the triangle formed by the three reactors. This point is located 2800 ft east of WNP-2 and has coordinates Long 119o19'18"W, Lat 46o28'19" N. This shift does not affect the. overall accuracy or applicability of the population distribution projections.
| |
| 2.1-5 Amendment 5 July 1981
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL Richland, Pasco and Kennewick, and the communities lying along the Yakima River from Prosser to Wapato. It can be seen from Figure 2.1-7 that there are no towns located within 10 miles of the site, with the exception of a small part of Richland. There are no residents of incorporated Richland within the 10-mile radius.
| |
| The 1990 to 2030 forecasts presented here(2) are based on: a) 1979 population figures provided by the Washington State Office of Finan-cial Management; b) Benton and Franklin County Traffic Analysis Zone population distributions; c) computed annual average area growth rates from 1975 through 1979 which were utilized to obtain the total 1980 population estimated for each area, and d} pointy forecasts prepared by the Bonneville Power Administration.(3).(4) 2.1.3.1 Po ulation Within 10 Miles The 10-mile radius around the site is shown in Figure 2. 1-7. In 1980, an estimated 1306 people were living within this. r adius. The nearest inhabitants occupy farms which are located east of Columbia River and are thinly spread over five compass sectors. There are no permanent inhabitants located within three miles of the site. Only about 80 persons reside between the 3-mile and the 5-mile radii and all are east of the Columbia River. Within a 5-mile radius of the site, there are no proposed public facilities (schools, hospitals, etc.), business facilities, or primary transportation routes for use by large numbers of people.
| |
| In 1980, an estimated 1,306 persons, 65K of whom are in the NE to SE sectors in Franklin County east of the Columbia River, resided within a 10-mile radius of the site. This number represents only 0.5X of the total population within a 50-mile radius.
| |
| The population within the 10-mile radius is estimated at 2,676 in 1990, 3,614 in 2000, and 3,877 in 2010. By 2020, the population within the 10-mile radius is estimated at 4,073 which is a 212K in-crease over 1980.
| |
| No significant changes in land use within five miles are anticipated.
| |
| The Hanford Site is expected to remain dedicated primarily to indus-trial use without private residences. No change in the use of the land east of the Columbia River is expected since it currently is ir-rigated to about the maximum amount practicable.
| |
| The industrial areas in the northern part of Richland and the residen-tial area SSW of the Yakima River near the Horn Rapids Dam are within the 10-mile radius. The residential area near the Horn Rapids Dam is unincorporated. The primary increase in population within the 10-mile radius is expected to be in this area (see Figure 2.1-7).
| |
| 2.1-6 Amendment 5 July 1981
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL 2.1.3.2 Po ulation Between 10 and 50 Miles As indicated in Table 2.1-1, about 251,684 people were estimated to be living within a 50-mile radius of the WNP-2 project in 1980. Begin-ning with the 10-mile radius, the population count increases rapidly because of the Tri-City region to the south and south-southeast:
| |
| Total population within the 20-mile radius was estimated to be 91,734 in 1980 or about 37K of the total within 50 miles. When the 30-mile radius is reached, another 52,000 persons can be added to the resident population, making the number of residents within the entire 30-mile radius total 143,735. Most of this zone's population count stems from the contribution of compass sectors containing the Tri-Cities and the residents of the fringe areas. Based on 1980 census reports, the Tri-Cities are the only significantly large population centers located in the 10 to 30-mile zone: Richland (33,578), Kennewick (34,397), and Pasco (17,944). The next 10 miles (to the 40-mile range) adds another 41,135 persons for a total 40-mile radius count of 184,870 while the 50-mile range adds the final 66,814 persons for a total of 251,684 persons living within a 50-mile radius of the construction site in 1980.
| |
| The primary future increase in population is expected to be in the SE to SSW sectors which include the entire Tri-Cities and adjoining areas. Little increase is generated westward. The population in-creases in the rural areas are based on the expected increase in irri-gated agriculture. The rest of the population is primarily in the Tri-City area as a result of increased activity on the Hanford Site and expansion of agricultural activities throughout the general region.
| |
| From the estimated 1980 population of 251,684, the population is pro-jected to be 301,943 in 1990, 336,115 in 2000 and 360,395 in 2010 within the 50-mile radius. By 2020, the population within the 50-mile radius is estimated at 379,930, and by 2030 at 383,828, which is a 53K increase over 1980.
| |
| /
| |
| 2.1.3.3 Transient Po ul ation The transient population consists of agricultural workers needed for harvesting crops produced in the region, industrial and construction workers both on and off the Supply System's WNP-1/4 project sites, and sportsmen engaged in hunting, fishing, and boating. Figure 2.1-9 shows the distribution of the transient population relative to the point cited on page 2.1-5.
| |
| Table 2.1-3 lists industrial employment within ten miles of the pro-ject site. The majority of these individuals are directly involved with research and operation of various programs and facilities for the Oepartment of Energy and its contractors on the Hanford Site. Most of this workday population reside within 10 to 30 miles of the project 2.1-7 Amendment 5 July 1981
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL and are included in the totals discussed in Subsection 2.1.3.2. The workday population total of approximately 19,500 includes the WNP-2 construction work force'which will be reduced to operating levels at the time of OL issuance.
| |
| Agricultural workers within the 50-mile radius during ear ly spring and late fall months, consist mostly of permanent residents numbering be-tween 2000 and 3000 laborers. In the summer months during gyak har-vest, the agricultural labor force is an estimated 34,000.(>3 With-in the 10-mile radius an estimated 1000 migrant workers are employed during the peak months of May and June. These workers are concen-trated in the north to south-southeast sectors on the irriga$ eg fyIm units located east of the Columbia River in Franklin County.<6)i(~~
| |
| Approximately 925 of these workers reside temporarily between the 5-10 mile radii; the remaining 75 are located within 5 miles of the site.
| |
| Hunting and fishing activities within the 10-mile radius are also centered in the north to south-southeast sectors along the Columbia River. The number of fishermen and hunters in this area varies with the season, the weather,'the day of the week, and the time of day.
| |
| The main hunting season is from mid-October until the end of January, and the main fishing season is from June throu'gh November. The heav-iest use of the area for both sports is on weekends and holidays in the early morning hours. It is estimated that the peak numPep qf hunt-ers and/or fishermen present in the area would total 1,000.<6>~~8)
| |
| It is estimated that, on the average, 10 hunters are present in the area on weekdays; the number increases to 50 on weekends and holi-days. The average number of fishermen present are 50 and 100 for weekdays, and weekends and holidays, respectively. Hunters and fish-ermen also have access to the Yakima River in the SW and SSW sectors where they may total 50.
| |
| 2.1.4 Uses of Ad'acent Lands and Waters Land use within a three (3) mile radius of the WPPSS Nuclear Projects includes the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF). Also included are the associated roadways and railroads, circulating water pumphouses on the Columbia River,,and the Supply System's Emergency Response/Plant Sup-port Facility. No other facilities are located in this area. Between the three (3) and five (5) mile radii, in the five eastern sectors, is an area devoted to agriculture.
| |
| Significant changes in land use outside five miles'nclude urban resi-dential and irrigated agricultural development. Most major new irri-gation developments have occurred in the Hermiston-Boardman area in Oregon and in the Plymouth area in Washington. Other new developments are in the hills adjacent to the Snake River east of Pasco, along the Yakima River west and north of West Richland, and in the hills north-west of the Hanford Site. Significant new irrigation development is expected in the Horse Heaven Hills southwest of the Tri-Cities (about 300,000 acres) and in the Columbia Basin Project north and east of the Columbia River (now totaling 570,000 acres).
| |
| 2.1-8 Amendment 5 July 1981
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL The principal sources of water for the irrigated areas south and west of the Tri-Cities are the Columbia, Snake, and Yakima Rivers. Ground-water is being pumped in the hills northwest of the Hanford Site and is expected to be used for new areas surrounding Pasco. New irriga-tion in the Columbia Basin Project will receive its water from Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River.
| |
| Scattered throughout the area within 50 miles of the project are a number of livestock and dairy operations. The number of individual livestock animals per location ranges from one to 250 and are utilized for both personal and commercial beef processing, as well as for breeding. There are eight beef processing plants located within 50 miles that provide beef to outlets outside the area, with the largest plant processing approximately 1000 head per day. The area within 50 miles is predominantly a feeder area during non-growing season, and causes the number of, livestock to fluctuate on a seasonal basis.
| |
| There are three (3) dairy operations located within ten (10) miles of the site. An estimated 95 additional milk prqdgcers are located with-in the area between the 10 and 50 mile radii.(9) The milk produced from these dairies is collected and transported to processing plants located as far away as Portland, Oregon and Spokane, Washington.
| |
| Table 2.1-2 provides distances to the nearest livestock, dairy animals, and vegetable gardens.
| |
| Hunting and fishing is extensive within the fifty (50) mile radius.
| |
| Much of the farm land is open to hunters, with upland bird and water-fowl being the most popular. Fishing occurs on the Columbia, Snake, Yakima, and Walla Walla Rivers, as well as in isolated lakes and ponds. The Columbia River is the closest area in which hunting and fishing can occur. Fishing and hunting can occur on both banks of the river as far upr iver as the Hanford Townsite. Within 10 miles of the site is an area designated as Controlled Hunting Area B. This area contains the Ringold Wildlife Refuge and the Wahluke Wildlife Refuge, consisting of approximately 4,000 acres of Department of Energy land managed by the Washington State Department of Game. Located adjacent to this area's southern boundary and within five miles of the site is the Ringold Fish Hatchery. This facility encourages steelhead fishing within one mile of its location. These three (3) areas experienced a total of 291,000 user-days by hunters and fishermen in a one (1) year period between 1978 and 1979.(10) 2.1-9 Amendment 5 July 1981
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.4-1 2'l (SHEET 3 OF AND COMPASS SECTOR DISTRIBUTION BY SITE POPULATION THE DISTANCE FROM 203Q 2020 2010 2000 Cumulative 1990 Cumulative ttumber ~lot 1 1980 Cumulative Number Total Cumui at ive soaaa
| |
| ~It+aber Cumulative Number ~Total Qirection Cumulative Total 0 0 0 N~umber Oisaaeee (Compass ~Tata> 0 0 0 0 86 ment+ Number 0 86 '50 0 55 esaes ~Se 55 64 0 52 118 214 0 52 63 64 0-3 All 0 0 48 48 60 112 63 181 64 278 0 35 104 172 244 290 0
| |
| 3-5 tt-ttNE 10 IO 35 43 78 56 56 160 60 60 232 63 11 255 12 0
| |
| '90 NE ENE 22 32 54 43 121 164 56 216 225 ll 243 243 0 255 328 22 43 9 0 88 E 22 76 6 170 0 225 342 550 87 172 ESE 4 80 0 170 83 326 512 804 170 254 SE 0 80 302 162 488 764 1006 72 2S2 202 SSE-ttttW 228 454 728 964 1299 58 152 240 200 293 26 106 354 678 918 1254 1688 126 224 190 290 389 tt 189 552 855 1194 1639 2298 5-10 83 L98 '?09 122 276 385 610 NNE 344 1112 366 1560 2243 2648 155 157 257 604 350 ttE 458 909 1453 2135 2590 3198 114 200 341 575 347 550 ENE 593 L185 1989 2465 .3134 4118 135 2?e 536 330 544 920 E 761 159L 2297 2983 4045 4147 168 406 308 518 911 29 E5E 190 951 253 1844 483 2?80 Se? 3850 28 4023 0 4147 SE 45 996 2116 3S89 27 3827 0 4073 272 809 SSE 50 1046 2651 3614 0 3827 454 4601 535 25 5 235 1281 26?6 0 3614 4522 5053 25 449 452 SSW 25 1306 0 2676 427 4304 447 4969 669 5722 SM 0 1306 4012 4730 5631 6696 398 426 662 974 MSM-ttNM 3042 4409 630 5360 964 6595 619 7315 371 397 1638 3418 4997 6277 2208 7972 332 371 588 917 613 657 tt 1966 3980 5S52 6860 7858 -14599 10-20 328 562 855 583 650 . 6627
| |
| !QIE 399 2365 4815 544 6396 618 7478 6561 14419 80734 95333 835 'L3? 20 ttE 3157 5294 6972 6242 94351 147055 792 4?9 576 79932 51722 ENE 461 3618 430 5724 12793 76043 89763 51208 145559 2188 149243 5821 E 192 3810 10945 83710 487 L? 13848Q 2166 147725 4433 153676 5221 70917 EST 7965 74428 129144 140541 4389 152114 1260 154936 4155 63483 45434 2061 SE 57143 IL2100 131066 144?L6 153362 0 154936 49178 37622 1922 4175 1248 SSE S6086 113872 134960 145904 0 153362 0 154936 28943 1772 :S94 1188 5 87678 112469 136068 0 145904 0 153362 0 154936 1592 3597 1108 SSM 90784 118512 0 136068 0 145904 0 153362 0 154936 3106 104S SM 91734 ILSSI? 0 136068 0 145904 153362 950 0 Q WSM 0 91734 0 118512 136068 0 145904 C~ ~~ M 91234 118517 136068
| |
| ~ ro 'WttW NW 0
| |
| 0 91734 91734 0
| |
| 0 118517 0
| |
| Ci 0 9ro NNW 00 M Ul
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.1-T fSHEET 2 OF 2)
| |
| J 980 Direction 1990 Distance (Coepass
| |
| /Hallos ~Se Cumulat ive 2010
| |
| ~ent Number Sosa) Cumul at i ve 2020 ZD-30 Number 2030 N assai Cumulative 1501 tiumber NtlE 5759 93235 1837 Zosaa tlumber Cumulative NE 2015 98994 6487 120354 2055 aasas.
| |
| )lumber Cumu)a t Ive ENE IO)009 126841 138123 Total Cumul at I ve 1717 2174 7123 2203 Number E 102726 129015 145246 148107 rate>
| |
| 151 1028V 1760 130V5 2274 7638 2316 155678 ESE 147520 J55745 153 103030 194 130969 1786 2438 8029 163707 2339 157275 SE 149306 158183 6138 109168 240 13)209 220 1915 160098 2563 166270 8110 165385 SSE 149526 24116 6512 305 236 2013 2589 5 133284 32559 13VZI 149831 160334 168283 )67974 187 )70280 6738 327 248 2033 170007 SSM 133471 l56569 160661 168531 875 678 36360 7225 344 250 J70257 SM 134346 170958 192929 167886 168875 6I65 12JS 975 38987 7594 348 MSM 1626 1191 140511 142I37 7147 1799 172176 179323 1426 7737
| |
| - 193904 195330
| |
| '045 1529 206S73 207918 42032 1098
| |
| )76469 218501 7670 42454 170605 178275 MtlM 143328 181122 203D67 209447 219599 220729 185 143513 1325 182447 1908 8296 2 I V43 1607 221206 )109 221838 NM 204975 4D 280 182727 1429 2046 8720 229926 1623 223461 NNM 143553 206404 219789 182 143735 44 182771 297 JS32 2151 232077 SBOS 232269 30-40 206701 221321 200 182971 48 318 221639 1610 2336S7 2173 234442 206749 980 218 51 334 1626 NtiE 144715 206967 22I690 234021 236068 3198 1096 184065 234 54 234075 338 236406 NE 1479)3 221924 650 3663 1127 246 55 EtiE 148563 IBV28 708094 234321 236461 421 800 3983 )208 249 236710 E 1489S4 JBBS28 2)2077 223132 128 149112 447 )88975 745 4271 227403 1270 235591 ESE 212822 SE 167 149279 136 189111 475 799 228202 4490 240081 1283 237993 213297 464 176 141 S09 846 4536 242529 SSE 149743 189287 213438 228711 240927 5 592 150335 484 189771 182 152 228863 535 241462 850 243379 213620 SSM 4680 155015 844 190615 497 195 229058 160 241622 540 243919 214117 256 155271 5653 196268 . 955 533 205 241827 162 24408)
| |
| SM 215072 229591 473 424 196692 6368 1023 560 208 244289 MSM 155744 221440 230614 242387 21871 661 197353 529 6828 1076 566 244855 M 177615 221969 237442 243463 3578 24729 786 567 7172 1087 MtiM tilt ftNM 1399 703 1575
| |
| )81193 182592 183295
| |
| .)84870 3949 1459 770 222082 226031 227490 228260 26890 4273 1579 222755 249645 253918 255497
| |
| ~ 842 28833 4582 238009 2388SJ 267684 272266 596 885 30362 250635 251231 252116 282478 7250 602 894 24S942 253192 253794 254688 40-50 1738 836 1693 4816 30665 N 229998 256333 273959 287294 285353 17872 202742 1899 896 1780 4864 ttNE 19730 258232 274855 289074 290217 tiE 893 203635 249728 2036 942 )798
| |
| : 10) 9 2)572 276891 290016 292015 926 204561 250747 279804 2140 952 ENE 1139 292156 292967 213 204774 251886 1121 280925 23130 300021 2161 E
| |
| 1275 295128 241 205015 243 252129 282200 1202 301223 24312 316468 ESE 864 258 252387 375 1367 1263 24556 SE 205879 282575 302590 31773J 319684 2084 925 253312 268 402 1437 1275 SSE 207963 282843 302992 31916S 320959 1740 2245 255557 961 287 423 -"
| |
| 1451 5 209703 283804 303279 319591 322410 16540 1920 2574 V 2349 ID30 302 427 SSM 226243 286153 304309 319893 322837
| |
| .~ tb SM 2610 421 228853 16406 2895 273883 2072 17708 288225 2518 2222 306827 1083 2646 320976 305 1095 323142 Ca MSM 229274 276VB 305933 309049 323622 324237 809 443 2972 18987 2336 2673 M 230083 27722) 308905 328036 325958 326910 B MttM 18515 248598 892 278113 476 309381 3186 331222 19958 345916 2359 329269 CD 965 1742 20481 298594 509 3349 349265 20158 ttM 25D340 310346 331731 349427 8)2 1903 22179 1035 535 3428 NNM 251152 300497 332525 332766 349800 352855
| |
| ~C3 Vl 532 251684 859 587 301356 301943 2043 905 334568 335473 2378'0 2191 356546 1088 24996 350888 375884 541 1099 353396 354495 358737 642 970 2303 378187 25247 379742 336115 359707 688 1020 379207 2326 3S2068 360395 723 1030 383098 379930 730 383828 e:
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.1-2 DISTANCES FROM WNP-2 TO VARIOUS ACTIVITIES Radius miles N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW Site Boundary 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.1 1.5 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 Milk Animal Nearest Residence 3.9 4.3 4.3 4.9 Pl M I
| |
| O I Nearest Vegetable 3.9 4.3. 4.3 4.9 I Garden Nearest Dairy 10 75 65 Nearest Livestock 10 6.0 3.9 4.3 - - 7.5 9.5 9
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL TABLE 2.1-3 INDUSTRY WITHIN A 10 MILE RADIUS OF SITE NO. OF EMPLOYER EMPLOYEES Department of Energy 400 Area (HEDL-FFTF) 1,187 300 Area (HEDL) 2,918 3000 Area (PNL) 2,016 1100 Area (Rockwell) 440 600 Area (Rockwell) 220 Pacific Northwest Laboratory (non-DOE) 380 Exxon - Horn Rapids Road Facility 750 George Washington Way Facility 90 UNC Commercial 80 Nortec 80 U. S. Testing 55 Sigma 30 Olympic Associates 18 Western Sintering 14 Futronix, Inc. 12 Quadrex 9 Miscellaneous ~
| |
| 60 Washington Public Power Supply System Headquarters Complex 1,021 WNP-2 Site (Construction Force) 3,000 WNP-1/4 Site (Construction Force) 7,000 WNP-2 Site (Projected Oper ations Personnel 295 WNP-1/4 Site (Projected Operations Personnel) 588 Note: DOE employment outside the 10-Mile radius includes:
| |
| 200 Area (Rockwell, E-1779, W-1361) 3,140 100 Area (UNC) 993 700 Area (DOE) 1,800 Employment totals are as of January 1981.
| |
| Amendment 5 July 1981
| |
| | |
| FIGHT NASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 SITE LOCATION MAP Environmental Report 2.1-1
| |
| | |
| CI7 I-I-
| |
| z'UNT 0-I-
| |
| I R. 23 E.
| |
| WA U ILATTAW R. 24 E.
| |
| R A N R. 25 C 0 U N TY STAT R. 26 Hl OH WAY A D N
| |
| M S fOIIIOLFF AA O'AL C 0.
| |
| OTH ELLO R.3 E.
| |
| AAANCII C ITE BLUFFS HI 0 HWA O IUD0 PRIEST ITA YAKIMA AY S STATION BPA)
| |
| F RANK L N OUNT OUNTY NFORO MESA I IMA IKl I lOelA PCt$ 1OLFF CANAL E NTON YBARR ADE
| |
| ~WN P-4 6 5 4 3 2 I
| |
| ~~o WNP- I 7 8 9 II I2 oop. N ELTOPIA IO c
| |
| ~+
| |
| IS I7 IB I5 I4 I3 I9 20 21 22 23 24 30 29 2S 27 26 25 3I 32 33 34 35 36 HORN RAPI DNERSCN OAM O
| |
| R H AN I
| |
| WES RCHLANO RICH LAND ANOVIEW V ~ 1%
| |
| KENNEWICK l
| |
| UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION HANFORD RESERJ4T ION NANFDRD RESERIIATIDN BOUNDARY BOUNDARY MAP 0 l t $ 4 ~ ~ $ ~ ~ $$ ll I$ 0 ~ l$ $ $$
| |
| VILOO WASHINGTON PUBLXC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM HANFORD RESERVATION WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO 2 BOUNDARY MAP
| |
| ~
| |
| Environmental Report FIGE 2.l-2
| |
| | |
| Hanford No. I I
| |
| WNP-4 I
| |
| O~
| |
| ARID LANDS WNP.2 Qe
| |
| !
| |
| ECOLOGY RESERVE W -I RICHLAND BENTON CITY
| |
| ~ FIGHT HANFORD RAILROAD SYSTEM I 0 . 2 4 rI II la MILES WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM HANFORD RESERVATION WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 RAILROAD SYSTEM Environmental Report 2.1-5
| |
| | |
| -N-Qz~
| |
| ~24 5 HanIord No. 1 I o 1
| |
| ~ Wl C 4~
| |
| dB pa~ I I 5 I I I L J g g 8 I I
| |
| I I
| |
| I I WNP-4 WNP-2 lR ARID LANDS po ECOLOGY RESERVE C4~) I g WNP-1 I
| |
| I I
| |
| I I I
| |
| RICHLAND CITY QIP- QJC Vg ~
| |
| Qua HANFORD RESERVATION ROADS STATE HIGHWAYS 2 1 0 2 0 8 10 MILES WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM HANFORD RESERVATION WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 ROAD SYSTEM Environmental Report FIG. 2.1-6
| |
| | |
| 4 I s . I ~, ~ soe
| |
| ~ I
| |
| ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~
| |
| I AI I
| |
| I ~ . ~ se sv ~
| |
| il )
| |
| I ,. i.N 4
| |
| ~ Q S
| |
| NQ'." L10.M
| |
| '
| |
| I io ~ I~ ,I v~ n I~ n vo i4 I' IT II ~ I OOSL si
| |
| ~~ ~oettte ~ s.II 10 I
| |
| ~~ I~
| |
| ~
| |
| lo I
| |
| ~~
| |
| ~ SSIN CIST 14 Io
| |
| [
| |
| as I~ 10 Os I' ~
| |
| t I~ ~~ I~ Ss I~ ~ I I~ ~ I I~ ~ I ST
| |
| ~0 ~ I ~ ~
| |
| SSLLTLO N tsvattitao ls ~ I lt ~ I I ~I so I 11 It 'is II 11 ~ \ ~I I~ 10 -
| |
| ~s
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~ I 11 ss 14 io OII TL avsIN 0 500 S ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ S ISS ~ ~ s I
| |
| ~ I ~ ~
| |
| solo I ~
| |
| I I tis II I I aL I
| |
| io 0 ~ ~ sa cat tts IO I z gi It]t it I I WN W s ~ ~ SI vt I~ s ~
| |
| 1
| |
| .~ I~
| |
| I,see vo E 4
| |
| S is I
| |
| ~0 I~ ~ I I~ Ii Il to I ai s ~ 10 I SS ~ I 0 OIN I
| |
| VT y a I
| |
| )
| |
| I~ lo ~ I Ss I~ Il ~~ ~ I I~ I I~ ~ 4 la ~~
| |
| '
| |
| ) [
| |
| C@ II II 10 I
| |
| ~
| |
| ]
| |
| I~ li I~ I~
| |
| Vt~ 5 I~ I~ Ss Nv so so
| |
| '00 ror CLCLS 5 CMIT aaNJ CL OCCSSS ~ IIT I(I ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| TLTOA4 SLTC I
| |
| ~ I~ is as ~ I~ ~ it II ia ~
| |
| I ~ I~
| |
| ~ ~ I I~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ st I ' I~
| |
| IO s I~ st S IT
| |
| 'I n ~ I I~ ~ tall ~ I I ~ av 4 to ~ TL I L
| |
| ~0 al I so os ~
| |
| ~0 ~
| |
| (I RANK IN COUNT I~ ti ',
| |
| I ~ 0 10 ~ I ~~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ I ~ st 0 Itel
| |
| ~ I
| |
| ~~
| |
| ~ 40
| |
| -WSW ~S ~~
| |
| V
| |
| ~ ~4 I
| |
| I ~ I ~ I~ ~
| |
| '
| |
| 3
| |
| ~ I
| |
| ~0 to Io tt I v I 10 II ~ D V
| |
| ~ v Oe ~ i as ~ I Ie 11 I
| |
| I I 'li Isliooto 14 O
| |
| V r at ~ I ~4 v
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ 000 Ivn
| |
| ~
| |
| I I: ~ ~ ~
| |
| I I
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| i I\v ne ~ ~ V ~
| |
| ~ SS IO I
| |
| ~ OIO
| |
| ~ I ~
| |
| N I
| |
| V J Q '
| |
| ~ s
| |
| ~ t,~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ I ~ at r sl
| |
| ~
| |
| I ~ I I L
| |
| ~ n I~
| |
| I St S n I~ ~ I~ st I~ ss I4 ls
| |
| ~ 4 s ~
| |
| v 5 L
| |
| ~ 0 ~I ~ I I
| |
| I~ ~4 s ~ rI ~ OS TIS
| |
| ~ v444O 'ss ' I~ ~ ~ ~ Ia I~
| |
| v 'start S aso44
| |
| ~0 It Se ~s 10 i
| |
| ~
| |
| so trrI~ I c ao TI I ~ I lt ~
| |
| Q I ~~
| |
| 'S I~ ", ~ at ~o ao
| |
| ~
| |
| Otto
| |
| ~ ao Into I~ ~ ~ ae
| |
| ~l ecotao rloa Ioo Op OTO
| |
| -r.i I J
| |
| NICN. ON i
| |
| ~ I~ I CI T ~tS
| |
| ~ ts ~ SSCO Ot Iso ~ I Of Cvg BK N TON oc-OO 0 ~ savon vs OIOSS ~
| |
| LO COUNTY I
| |
| c> I so ss OTS IOINC vsCN '
| |
| I 1 I Amendment 5, July 1981 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM PROJECT AREA MAP - 10 MILE RADIUS WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.. 2 Environmental Report FIG. 2. 1-7
| |
| | |
| eLNI trt CO CMIOTO GRANT CO.
| |
| I 0 Wllr R, N B KITTITAS CO AMS CO.
| |
| 0TII 4 vtsr Tvc COrrtL TAltlltA0 Ol OTT C
| |
| FR tl, Oflk YAKIMA CO. vrtrr
| |
| 'VLITCOVOO l2 rklvr ~
| |
| WSW WALLA LLA O w~ w~
| |
| I BENT N CO. W IO Ol OICCLCTOr OOlt rcrrICTor KLICKITATCO.
| |
| ~I
| |
| ~LV 0 S IO IS 20 MILES OMATILLA CO.
| |
| SCALE ~ MORROW CO.
| |
| Amendment 5, July 1981 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM PROJECT AREA MAP - 50 MILE RADIUS WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO ~ 2 Environmental Report
| |
| | |
| NNW NNE Q45 Q130 NW NE Q150 WNW
| |
| ~Q Q150 ENE pe W 10 MILES 2 3000 25 35 Q150 Q150 WSW ESE Q50 SW SE 7443 750 SSW SSE KEY
| |
| ,Industrial Employees 3000 Migratory Agricultural Workers Q150 Sportsmen Amendment 5 Jul 1981 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION OF TRANSIENT POPULATION WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 WITHIN 10 MILES OF SITE Environmental Report FIG- 2.1-9
| |
| | |
| FIGURES DELETED Amendment 5, July 1981 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 Environmental Report PIG ~ 2.1-10 thru 20
| |
| | |
| 1
| |
| +(,'Err 4
| |
| ~
| |
| so Cup
| |
| ~ 6 0q,
| |
| ~C.
| |
| zvE rk4 BARR ACAOE I
| |
| I PRO Pal T LINE -'~
| |
| Q1 QWNP 0 Ill Ie EXCLUSION AREA ~ '- I WNP PUkt NOU5C 4l BOUNDARY '
| |
| PUL'P oUSE ~ACCESS, tU -Q:
| |
| I <<< OUIE
| |
| ' ~
| |
| NQ G3 WNP-2 0 WNP-1 O
| |
| li BENTON WITCHIN6 V
| |
| STATION ~X I
| |
| l~
| |
| q, RESTRICTED AREA
| |
| +e'OUNDARY I
| |
| E -/-- - =-'
| |
| O 1 ~
| |
| 4l O O O 0 I
| |
| AP Cy Cy s
| |
| I P 1 le p
| |
| O
| |
| ~o aO
| |
| "+c .I 0 1 I MILE O O:
| |
| O 3
| |
| FF TF SITE I 4
| |
| SCALE
| |
| '3
| |
| ) j Anendnent 4, October 1980
| |
| ~ I gWASH'.NGTON PUBLXC POWER SUPPLY r 'I
| |
| ,44 SYSTEM SITE PLAN WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO..
| |
| Environmental Report FXG- 2.1-3
| |
| | |
| !
| |
| I C I ~
| |
| h w I
| |
| j r,
| |
| 0 0 e
| |
| | |
| //~s
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| gl gggg
| |
| /I
| |
| ,rr I H ISOOO gg gg I I I/>>
| |
| /I /I I I I I" O 0 I /gg fD O
| |
| +/I 41 O I Nol~ QI o> ~ 0O I HcggsL 1 Ro~w
| |
| ~ gg //Is O I
| |
| //Igg' /
| |
| g Lgg 1
| |
| rrr/
| |
| o/I I II I I ~ <<f I ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| \
| |
| I r I II r g
| |
| g p~/ I I I I 1C/ 1 I 5 I/ r r /r/r//
| |
| g
| |
| / I I I
| |
| 1 1
| |
| I I
| |
| 1 I \
| |
| I 'I xX 1 I I
| |
| /'L'L I I \
| |
| \ I RP g 4 1
| |
| /l I w r r rr PUMP HOUSL HO 2 I
| |
| \ 1 Q'fLR LIORAL TAllfL ( I I
| |
| / CAS SOTTLL I
| |
| @O/TATfON MO S L 1
| |
| , STORACL SLD7C g I I 'I l 1 I I
| |
| I I 1 1 T 1 I I I I
| |
| I--t--
| |
| / I N IRSOO I 7f / / I
| |
| .-
| |
| WYE. BURIAL SROuHD ', I i. / 1 I
| |
| I
| |
| / \
| |
| / I /
| |
| I I 1
| |
| / r/ I I ll-%d ' /I l
| |
| rc' /
| |
| I I
| |
| I /
| |
| I
| |
| // g
| |
| \
| |
| LL) L
| |
| ~
| |
| d r dr g
| |
| w OC r
| |
| rr
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 t TRAHSIONMLIL YARD /
| |
| I I I )i Ol /
| |
| r / I I / rr I ~0 c--1/i I I
| |
| I 0LMSAT STOOACL TAIf
| |
| \
| |
| I~ 1 ogo 1 rl TURSINL CLMLRATOR SLO4
| |
| \
| |
| ',1 qL 'S I
| |
| l l Lri ,P)- '
| |
| N 12CMLR..
| |
| SLRYICL
| |
| 'l OLO4 I 1
| |
| \
| |
| I l RLACTO R
| |
| 'Ih%
| |
| RAOIIAST2 O'LOC OLD C I 1 I tlqiyGL 1 g I DII,SLL Ig VLL I ~ LMLRATOR I x'gX LL C 61.OC I
| |
| I I ll Ill )
| |
| I (T I \ I I <IT O>>I /II a/ IO
| |
| // II ggI /1 IIglI
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ I 1
| |
| / I .
| |
| I ' ' Il TILL Ill \ R' L1 H II SOO OIIICL PARfLINC I RL l SL \
| |
| / // (i I wgg y
| |
| I g, I
| |
| -- l g l r J I 1 r rr IO SPRAY POND IA
| |
| -r r I
| |
| i "-r r ii XXLL I 0 I SPRAY POND IS 1
| |
| I No 2S No IS V 1 I
| |
| 1T,Li111 L /rr I
| |
| COOLIMC TOHLA I (rYR j I I
| |
| ) r( N 11 OOO Mo 2A Ho IA 4I t r/
| |
| I 1 L /
| |
| I'LC. O'04 Ma2 RAPHI
| |
| )
| |
| LLC SLOC Hol r ) /// r //r/
| |
| // /r //
| |
| / f I
| |
| ~ aa m m 445 rrr r /
| |
| Ha 2C l 1+ L 11 r / rior Amencment 1 i1a<- l978 o io WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM -
| |
| SITE PQ7Z PLAN
| |
| / I /
| |
| ALP WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 r- // I 1
| |
| / t I I 1
| |
| Environmental Report
| |
| (
| |
| I l r
| |
| / rr r T I
| |
| 1 I I I
| |
| II g
| |
| / / \
| |
| I ,~
| |
| I r I g g
| |
| ~ r I
| |
| ~ rr
| |
| ~
| |
| gg gg PIG. 2.1-4
| |
| ~ gg
| |
| | |
| l 4
| |
| ~ I I
| |
| ,1 r i I
| |
| I'{
| |
| I Ih
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL 2.2 ECOLOGY 2.2.1 Terrestrial Ecolo The sagebrush-bitterbrush vegetation type surrounds and occupies about 100 square miles on the Department of Energy Hanford Site (Figure 2.2-1). The WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 exclusion zone and corridor to the Columbia River occupy about 8 square miles of the same vegetation. Although sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata, and bitterbrush, Purshia tridentata, are the conspicuo~us p ants in stands without a fire history, much o~the and in the vicinity of RNP-2 and WNP-1/4 is devoid of shrubs because of yn extensive wildfire (17,000 acres) which occurred in the summer of 1970.(3) The conspicuous vegetation on the burned acreage consists of about 30 herbaceous species, especially cheatgrass, I
| |
| Russian thistle, Salsola kali, and Sandberg bluegrass, Poa ~sandbar ii.
| |
| Even without the stresses imposed by wildfire, the vegetation is not repre-sentative of pristine conditions. The widespread occurrence of cheatgrass, an introduced alien weed, suggests that overgrazing by sheep and cattle in past years (pre-1943) has been instrumental in the spread of cheatgrass. There are no plans to reintroduce livestock grazing to the site area nor is there any evidence to expect that cheatgrass will be replaced by native plant species over a 30 to 40 year time span. Cheatgrass does play an important role in community function by retarding wind erosion, providing seed for birds and pocket mi ce, and herbage for insects.
| |
| Past experience and field observations indicate that the soil is very sandy and susceptible to wind erosion, especially following events that destroy the sparse vegetation cover. Vegetation distrubances must therefore be kept to
| |
| .minimal acreage. Reseeding of distrubed soil requires special attention to the selection of plant species and planting season to successfully reestablish a suitable vegetative cover in a reasonable time period. Table 2.2-1a pre-sents a list of terrestrial organisms identified near the project site.
| |
| Five vegetation stgdy locations were established in the vicinity of the pro-ject si te in 1974. < 2" ) Host of the 1 and immedi ately around the constr ucti on zones had been burned in the 1970 fire, leaving only small unburned patches of shrubs. Three stands were selected as "unburned" study locations. The other two sites were selected as representative of "burned" vegetation. Plots were read in April or early Hay at what was judged to be the peak of vegetation development. Five plots, each O.l m2, were harvested to obtain an estimate of peak live above-ground herbaceous phytomass during the years 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978.
| |
| Four species These were bi<<h,~ <<d of shrubs were encountered bitterbrush, P. tridentata; in 1978 on the study plots.(29)
| |
| . i<<1 sagebrush, A. tridentata; and two
| |
| . I 2.2-1 Amendment 4-October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL buctwheat, ~Eric onum niveum Dougl., a sub-shrub, was abundant in only one plot. One plot was dominated by sagebrush with a sparse representation of rabbitbrush; a second plot was dominated by bitterbrush; and a third consisted of bitterbrush and sageb~ush (mixed) in approximately equal proportions.
| |
| Total shrub canopy-cover r anged between 14 and 37 percent., The sagebrush plot had the lowest density, 85 shrubs per 1000 m2; the bitterbrush plot had 95 and the mixed plot 114.
| |
| In 197) twenty-nine species of herbaceous plants were observed on the study plots.<~9> These were grouped into four categories: (1) annual grasses, (2) annual forbs, (3) perennial grasses and (4) perennial forbs. Cheatgrass, Bromus tectorum, clearly dominated the canopy cover. Nonburned and burned
| |
| ~pots were similar as far as canopy cover was concerned. Sixteen species of annual forbs were counted on the study plot. Tansy mustard, Descurainia innata; tumble mustard, Sis brium altissimum; jagged chickweed, Holosteum umbel atom and Russian thistle, Sa souaaka s r were the most important con-tributors to canopy cover. Anno~a forbs contributed about 25 percent to canopy cover and nonburned and burned plots had about the same amount of forb canopy cover. Only two species of perennial grasses were observed on the study plots. Sandberg bluegrass, Poa ~sandber ii Vasey, contributed 9 percent to canopy cover. Needle and thread, ~Stv a comate, was present but in small amounts. Nine species of perennial forbs were encountered on the study plots but they contributed only three percent to canopy cover.
| |
| A summary of four years of field observations (1975 - 19)8) shows that the smallest amount of canopy cover was produced in 1977.(29~ It was also by far the driest of the four years with only 1.21 inches of rain between October 1976 and April 1977. This was the only year in which cheatgrass failed to dominate canopy cover. The 1978 growing season was wetter than usual and cheatgrass promptly regained vegetative dominance. Annual forbs also con-tributed more canopy cover in 1978 than in previous years., Canopy cover was not greatly different between nonburned and burned plots except in 1976 when annual grasses contributed 61 percent of the canopy cover in the burned plots compared to only 42 percent in the unburned plots. The production of herb-aceous phytomass is expressed as g/m2/yr. The year of lowest production was 1977 when only 10 g/m2 of dry phytomass was produced. Mean annual values ranged between 10 and 195 g/m2 while the 4-year average was 126 g/m~.
| |
| The animal populations are sparge apd characteristic of the shrub-steppe ecosystems of the Hanford Site.(~ 2) The only big game mammal is the mule deer, Odocoileus hemionus. With the sparse cover around WNP-2 and WNP-1/4, deer use the area as a foraging zone, retiring to the sand dune area a mile or so north where they are infrequently disturbed by human trespass. The nearest surface water available to deer is the Columbia River. The sparse riparian shrub-willow community also provides deer forage but little cover. The bulk of the Hanford Site mule deer herd subsists in the sand dunes area near the abandoned village of Hanford, about 7 miles north of WNP-2 and WNP-1/4.
| |
| Amendment 4
| |
| : 2. 2-2 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL The important fur-bearing animals are the coyote (Canis latrans) and the badger (Taxidea taxus). These animals are wanderers and use the area as a foraging ground. They are noi numerous and accurate estimates of population density and daily movement patterns are the objective of specialized research studies. There is no information on harvests for pelts because the Hanford Site area is not open for trapping of animals.
| |
| The most important medium-sized manmal is the black-tailed jackrabbit (Le us californicus). Populations of jackrabbits in steppe regions fluctuate wide y from year to year depending upon a number of environmental variables including weather, predation, and disease.
| |
| ~<<j Small mammal populations were investigated in burned and unburned portions of the bitterbrush-cheatgrass ecosystem from 1974 to 1978 using live traps.(29) Five hundred and six individual animals representing five species were trapped, marked and released over a total of 11,600 trap nights.
| |
| 9 b i t~P
| |
| <<b trapped with 418 individuals captured. Secon was the deer mouse (~Perom scus wl i ii maniculatus) with 65 individuals. The northern grasshopper mouse (Onynchom s 1,h Reithrodontom s ~e<ealotis) by eight individuals, and the Townsend ground trapped in the unburned vegetation than on the grid with a recent fire history.
| |
| Clearly the most abundant small mammal in the bitterbrush cheatgrass ecosystem in terms of population numbers and food chain dynamics is the pocket mouse.
| |
| The yearly cycle of activity for this species begins in March and April as the adults emerge from winter torpor to breed. A second peak is normally seen in late summer with the recruitment of young into the population.
| |
| Birds were counteg in a 20-acre study plot, established in 1976, located just west of WNP-2. (29> The study plot was surveyed on three consecutive mornings of observations during the spring breeding season of 1977 and 1978. The west-ern meadlowlark, horned lar k, sage sparrow and white-crowned sparrows were observed most cormonly; all other species were observed incidentally.
| |
| The habitat in the vicinity of the project site is not suitable for California quail or Chinese ring-necked pheasants, which are more abundant elsewhere on the Hanford Site, especially riparian habitats along the Columbia River north of WNP-2 and WNP-1/4. Although chukar partridges normally live and reproduce in dry, shrub-steppe habitats, the project area is not suited for these birds. The birds are especially abundant in the Rattlesnake Hills ten miles west of the project site, where the topography is more broken, vegetation more grassy, and the soils stony.
| |
| The region is a hunti ng ground for birds of prey, with the Swai nson's hawk prevalent in spring and sumner and the golden eagle in the winter season. The bald eagle has been observed on the Hanford Site at various times and is the only wildlife species observed to frequent the area that is on the list of Amendment 4
| |
| : 2. 2-3 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL threatened or endangered species. Habitat significant to the bald eagle will not be disturbed by the construction and operation of WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 project.
| |
| The islands in the immediate vicinity of the site and downstream have a mixed composition with a substrate of either sand and gravel or cobblestone and gravel. Sagebrush cormunities and willows are established on the dunes of the larger islands. Approximately 200 pairs of nesting geese produce 700 goyliqgs annually and an estimated 100 pairs of ducks also nest on these islands.<30)
| |
| The Columbia River is a natural migration route for the Pacific Flyway waterfowl. Several million ducks and geese use the Columbia River Basin during movement to and from the northern breeding grounds. The waterfowl common to the area are shown in Table 2.2-1a. An aer ial census was made in 1973 to estimate the number of ducks, Capadi an geese, Great blue heron, and eagles nesting on the Columbia River (31>. In mid-November, more than 20,000 ducks and 1,200 geese were observed resting on the river. The majority of these birds wer e located upstream of the project site.
| |
| Two islands, one near Ringold (river mile 354) and another near Coyote Rapids (river mile 382), are used as rookeries by colonies of California and ring-billed gulls. Approximately 6000 nesting pairs produce 10,000 to 20,000 young annually.
| |
| 2.2.1.1 Threatened and Endan ered S ecies The plants and animals living in the area are widespr ead and common in steppe vegetation (rangeland) in the dry parts of Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washing-ton. However, rangeland acreage diminishes each year primarily as a result of (Illa'11 an expanding agricultural use of land through extensi on of irrigati on sys-tems. As the land is converted from rangeland to irrigated agriculture, native plant and animal populations diminish. One function of the 100 square mile area of Arid Lands Ecology (ALE) Reserve (Rattlesnake Hills Research Natural Area) qn the Hanford Site is to provide a refugium for native plants and animals.(4) h l gi l i<<i 1 <<1 i (Federal designa~tion to occur in the area of the WPPSS projects. The pop-ulation on the Hanford DOE Site has increased over the years from five (5) p birds in the 1960's to over 15 birds in the late 1970's. Eagles generally arrive during mid-November, with a peak abundance occuring in late November through early February, and begin to depart in mid-February. They do not nest in the area. There are no other Federally designated threatened or endangered
| |
| ~ animals or plants living in the WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 site area. The American peregrine falcon (Falcon ere rinus anatum) is an endangered specie (Federal designation) shish may at times appe~ar a ong the corridors although the exact ranges are not known.
| |
| The construction and operation of the nuclear facilities is not expected to result in the damage or loss of any species presently regarded as endangered or threatened.
| |
| 2.2-4 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL 2.2.2 ~iE The physical and chemical characteristics of the Columbia River in the vicinity of WNP-1, 2 and 4 are presented in Section 2.4. Comprehensive evaluations of the ecological characteristics of the Columbia River are presented in references 5, 6, 7, 12, and 32.
| |
| Studies concerned with the various aquatic organisms in the Columbia River, relating mainly to influence of reactor operation, were conducted for over 30 yeare a bibliography with abstfacts of these investigations was published in 1973< l and updated in'1979.<~gl The following paragraphs summarize the d essential ecological characteristics of the major communities. Figure 2.2-2 is a simplified diagram of the food-web relationships in selected Columbia River biota and represents probable major energy pathways. The Columbia River presents a very complex ecosystem in terms of trophic relationships due to its size, the number of man-made alterations-, the diversity of the biota, and the size and diversity of its drainage basin.
| |
| Streams in general, especially smaller ones, depend greatly upon allocthonous input of organic matter to drive the energetics of the system. Large rivers, particularly the Columbia be'cause it is a series of lentic reservoirs, contain a significant population of autochthonous primary producers (phytoplankton and periphyton) which contribute the basic energy needs. The dependence of the free-flowing Columbia River in the Hanford area upon an authochthonous food base is reflected by the faunal constituents, particularly the herbivores in the second trophic level. Filter-feeding insect larvae such as caddisfly larvae, and periphyton grazers such as limpets and some mayfly nymphs are typical forms present. Shredders and large detrital feeders (such as the large stonefly nymphs) which are typical of smaller streams are absent. The presence of large numbers of the herbivorous suckers also attests to the presence of a significant periphytic population. Carnivorous species are numerous, as would be expected in a system of this size. A list of aquatic organisms identified from the Columbia River is presented in Table 2.2-lb.
| |
| 2.2.2.2 ~h Diatoms are the dominant algae in the Columbia River, usually representing over 90K of the population. The main genera in the vicinity of WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 include C clotella, Asterionella, Melosira, and S nedra; lentic forms 2 2 this section of the river. The phytoplankton also contain a number of species derived from the periphyton or sessile algae community. This is particularly true of the Columbia River in the vicinity of the project site because of the fluctuating water levels due to operation of Priest Rapids Dam inmediately upstream from Hanford. Periphytic algae exposed to the air for part of the day may dry up and become detached and suspended in the water when the river level rises again. Peak biomass of net phytoplankton is about 2.0 g dry wt/m3 in Hay and winter values are less than 0.1 g dry wt/m3.(9) Figure 2.2-3 illustrates the seasonal fluctuations in plankton biomass. A spring increase with a second pulse in late summer and autumn was observed in the 2.2-5 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL Hanford section of the Columbia River in previous studies.(10.11) The spring pulse is probably related to increasing light and warming of the water rather than to availability of nutrients. The coincident decrease of P04 and N03, essential nutrients for algae growth, may be partially related to uptake by the increasing phytoplankton populations but is also highly influ-enced by the dilution of these nutrients by the increased flows due to high runoff at this time. The extent of dilution depends upon the concentration of these nutrients in the runoff waters. However, these nutrients do not de-crease to concentrations limiting to algae growth at any time of the year.
| |
| Green and blue-green algae occur mainly in the warmer months but in sub-stantially fewer numbers than the diatoms.
| |
| Aquatic studies were performed in (he viqinity of WNP-2 and WNP-1/4, September 1974 through March 1980.~34-39> The Columbia River phytoplankton community passing WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 have been examined to determine species composition, relative abundance and pigment concentration. Community comp-osition was similar 1975 through 1979. Seasonal trends for phytoplankton pigment concentrations and density (No/ml) were also similar. Micrograms of chlorophyll a per liter ranged from 1.) to 20.2, while density values ranged from 119 in January to 2878 in May.(38) 2.2.2.2 ~Per'i h ton 4I in spring Dominant diatom genera include Melosira and Gom honema and and Ulothrix occur. Net Production Rate (NPR), as measured from 14-day colon-ization of artificial substrates, varied from 0.07 mg dry wt/cm2/day ip August to less than 0.01 mg dry wt/cm2/day in December and January.<13)
| |
| Figure 2.2-4 shows the seasonal pattern of NPR. This represents the 14-day growth on clean glass slides and not the increment on an established com-munity. NPR was highly correlated with solar energy and chlorophyll a con-centration on the slides during the 2-week exposure. The colonization con-ditions obtained in these studies began from a bare surface, and after 2 weeks the communities were probably still in the log-growth phase. Correlations among biomass measurements were highest between dry weight and ash weight, due mainly to the high population of diatoms with silica frustules.
| |
| 4 Nacrophytic sobstrates along the river bed and shoreline in the vicinity of the project site consists mainly of Ringlold formation with sand, gravel, and I
| |
| larger boulders on the surface. The widely varying diurnal flows cause large areas along the river shoreline to be alternately flooded and dry during each day. These characteristics have precluded the development of a rooted macro-phyte comunity such as is comonly found in sloughs and backwaters.
| |
| : 2. 2-6 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| MNP-2 ER-OL
| |
| .2.!. ~1k The zooplankton population in the Columbia River at WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 is low in number and varies seasonally. Seasonal trends for microcrustacea are similar 1974 through 1980.(39) Copepods dominate in the late fall, winter and spring. Cladocerans dominate in the sumner and early fall. ,Bosmina sp.
| |
| is the dominant cladoceran observed at NNP-1/4 and NNP-2. The denss ty (number/m3) of zooplankters was similar 1974 through 1980. The density ranged from 22 in November to 776 in August.(39) Zooplankton form only a minor 'dietary item (0 )X of the total diet) for young salmon in the Hanford portion of the river.i~6) 2.2.2.5 Benthos Dominant organisms presently found in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 and MNP-2 site include insect larvae, sponges, molluscs, flatworms, leeches, crayfish, and oli gochaetes. The daily fluctuating water levels, due to the manipulation of flow by an upstream hydroelectric dam, have destroyed a part of this fauna in the littoral zone. Near the old Hanford townsi te, ten miles upstream, midge larvae (Chironomidae) and caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera) are the most numerous benthic organisms, averaging 121 and 208 organisms/ft2, respectively.(5>
| |
| Caddisfly larvae and molluscs (Nollusca) are predominant in terms of biomass, averaging 2.24 and 1.23 g wet wt/ft2, respectively. Total benthic organisms averaged 375/ft2 and 3.59 g wet wt/ft2 during 1951-52. These figures are approximations of these populations due to the difficulty in sampling all of the bottom in a large river such as the Columbia. Sampling was restricted to the shallow shoreline, and even there variations between replicate samples sometimes greater than seasonal variations. 'ere Since September 1974 benthic macrofauna and microflora samples have been collected in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 and MNP-2.(34-39> Benthic microflora are dominated by diatoms and the most cordon genera are Navicula, Nitzschia and ~Snedra. The highest density (number/m2) was observed in March and December when small pennate diatoms dominated the benthic flora.(39)
| |
| Benthic macrofauna populations near WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 are dominated by midge fly (Chironomidae) and caddisfly (Trichoptera) larvae. These two taxa comprise 905 of the benthic macrofauna with other taxa never accounting for more than a few percent of the total community. The highest densities have been observed in September. The seasonal trend is for densities to increase between June and September and decrease between September and December.
| |
| : 2. 2. 2.6 F ish Forty-four species of fish have been identified in the Hanford area of the Columbia River,<40) none of which are presently considered rare, threatened, or endangered. Table 2.2-lb lists the species present and although most are resident, the anadromous salmon and steelhead trout represent the species of greatest comnercial and recreational importance; hence, most fisheries research has been concerned with the salmonids.
| |
| 2~2 7 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL Salmon spawn in the fall, leaving eggs to incubate in the redds from late fall to mid-winter. From mid to late winter the eggs hatch into fry which emerge from the gravel from February through April. Following emergence, the juveniles begin their migration to the Pacific Ocean. The peak seaward migration of all juvenile salmonids in the lower Columbia River, including those produced in the Hanford reach, occurs in mid-April to. mid-June.
| |
| However, the out-migration of salmonids produced in areas upstream of Priest Rapids Dam is now later than in the payt apparently because of delays in passage through the reservoir complex.<2~)
| |
| The salmonids all have a similar life cycle but each species and race matures at a different rate. This results in differences in timing and duration of life stages and activities. Timing and numbers of upstream migrants are shown in Figure 2.2-5. These data were obtained at, and in the vicinity of, Bonneville Dam. Corps of Engineers fish counts at other dbms on the Columbia River and major tributaries also show timing of migration. 24) Only slight variations will be noted in timing of migration pulses depending on river miles traveled and migratory pathway, i.e., main channel migrants or tributary migrants. Adult salmonids move through the Hanford portion of the river during all months of the year, but the greatest numbers pass through during the spring to early fall. Peak adult migration periods are generally as foil ows:
| |
| Sockeye - July-August Chinook - April-May, July-September Coho - September-October Steelhead - August-October Studies on the routes of migration through the Hanford stretch of the river indicate the preference for the east-northeast bank (across the river from the intakes for the plants) a pattern which persists from Priest Rapids Dam
| |
| : 4) downstream to Richland.(22)
| |
| The Hanford reach of the Columbia River serves as a migration route to and from upstream spawning grounds; fall chinook salmon and steelhead trout also spawn in the Hanford section of the river. Population estimates were made of the locally spawning chinook salmon redds in the section of river from Richland to Priest Rapids Dam (Table 2.2-3). For the period 1947 to 1972 the average number of chinook salmon spawners was almost 9500 fish, with a range of 450 to 31,600.(26) Since 1962, the local fall chinook salmon spawning populagiog represents 15 to 20K of the total fall chinook escapement to the river.'127) This recent increase in relative importance of the Hanford section for chinook spawning may result from the destruction of other mainstem spawning grounds by river impoundments.
| |
| The chinook juveniles move through the Hanford section of the Columbia in two age cl asses: young-of-the-year and yearlings. The young-of-the-year in particular inhabit the areas near shore where they feed as they move downstream. They are present from late winter through midsummer, with greatest numbers in April, May, and June.
| |
| 2.2-8 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL Average annual steelheqd ppawning population estimates for the years 1962-1971 are about 10,000 fish.<28~ Counts in 1976 and 1977 were about 9800 and 9200 fish, respectively. The annual estimated 1963-1968 sport catch in the section of river from Ringold, just downstream from the Hanford Site boundary, to the mouth of the Snake River (a distance of about 30 miles) was approximately 2700 fish.
| |
| The shad, another anadromous species, may also spawn in the Hanford section of the river. Young-of-the-year of this fish are collected during the summer.
| |
| The upstream range of the shad has increased since the mid 1950s, possibly as the result of increased impoundment of water in the lower and middle river.
| |
| In 1956 fewer than 10 adult shad ascended McNary Dam; in 1966 about 10,000 passed upstream. The whitefish are resident in the Hanford section of the river and support a winter sport fishery. During the period of maximum plutonium production reactor operation, upstream movement of whitefish and other resident species was demonstrated by the capture of fish containing greater than background levels of radionuclides at Priest Rapids Dam, upstream of the Hanford Reservation.
| |
| Other game species such as sturgeon, smallmouth bass, crappie, and sunfish are also fairly abundant in the Hanford section of the Columbia, and are important game speci es.
| |
| A total of 37 species representing 12 families of fish have been collected from September 1974 through March 1980 in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 and WNP-2.
| |
| Greatest catches and, hence, assumed abundance of most fish species near occur in spring and surfer and coincide with spawning, fry emergence and increased I~0 tshaw tscha), Northern squawfish (Pt chocheilus ore onensis), redside shiner Richardsonius balteatus), sculpins Cottus spp., suckers (Catostomus spp.),
| |
| 4 annual total catch. Most Hanford fishes are opportunistic and utilize juvenile and adult aquatic insects, mainly caddisf lies and midge flies, smaller fish and occasionally zooplankton for food. 8ottom feeders ingest periphyton.
| |
| 2.2-9 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL TABLE 2.2-1a TERRESTRIAL FLORA AND FAUNA NEAR WNP-1/4 and WNP2 Pl ants Shrubs Big Sagebrush Artemesi a, tri dentata Bi tterbrush Purshi a tri dentata Green rabbitbrush id f1 Gray rabbitbrush C. nauseosus Spiny hopsage ~Era ia ~s>nona Snow Eriogonum ~Erin onum n>veum Forbs Longleaf phlox Phlox ~ion ifolia Balsamroot ~Ba samorhiza ~care ana Sand dock Rumex venosus Scurt pea Psoral~ea anceolata Lupine ~Lu inus laxiflorus Pale evening primrose Oenotheraa~u aida Oesert mallow Cluster lily Brodiaea ~dou~asii Sego lily Caccoc ortus macrocar us Tansy mustard Tumbl e mustard um Cryptantha Cr tantha circumscissa Russian thistle Salso a kali Fleabane ~Eri aron f~Tifolius Grass'es Sandberg bluegrass Poa sandber ii Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum Indi an ricegrass ~0r zo sos h enoides Squirrel- tail S>tanion h strix Six weeks fescue Festuca octof ora Thickspike wheatgrass rar.ian Ve etation Wil 1 ow Salix exi ua and others Cottonwood Sedges Car ex spp.
| |
| Rushes Juncos sp.
| |
| Horsetail ~Euisetum sp.
| |
| Cocklebur Xanthium sp.
| |
| Wild onion 'nnnium sp.
| |
| Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL TABLE 2.2-1a Cont'd Birds Mall ard Green-winged teal Nettion carolinense Blue-winged teal Cinnamon teal g. c ano tera Gadwall Chaule asmus ~stre erus Baldpate Nareca americana Pintail ~Dafi a acute tzitzihoa Shoveller Y~Yatu 'a~c cata Canvas-back ~N roca va ss>neria Scaup N. affinis American goldeneye Glaucs onetta clan ula americana Buff 1 e-head Charitonetta a beo a Ruddy duck Amer i can mer g ans er Ner us e'er anser ameri canus Coot Fu ica americana Horned grebe ~~Co bus aur>tus Western grebe Aechmo horus occidentalis Pied-billed grebe ~Pedi bus od>ce s Canada goose Branta cana ensss Snow goose then h erborea White-fronted goose Anser a bi rons Whistling swan ~yynus~co umb> anus Great blue heron Ardea herodius Whi te pel i can h Cormor ant Phal acrocorax auritus Calif ornia gull Ring-billed gull L. del ewarensi s Comnon tern Ster na her undo Foster's tern S. forster Killdeer ~5x echus vociferus Long-bil ed curl ew 1 Numenius amer>canus Chukar partridge ~Aectori s recce Calif orni a quail ~Lo hurt x ca > orica Ring-necked, pheasant Phasianus ~co chicus tor uatus Sage hen Mourning dove Zenzi dura macroura Red-tailed hawk Guten bore~a >s Swainson's hawk B. swainsoni Sparrow hawk Falco s arverius Golden eagle W~uiTa ~chr saetos canadensis Bald eagle Haliaetus leucoce ~ha us Osprey Pandion haliaetus caro inensis Burrowing owl S eot to~cunlcu arse Horned owl Raven corvus corax American magpie Pica pica hudsonia Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL TABLE 2.2-1a Cont'd Red-shafted flicker ~Cola tes cafer Horned l ark Octocoris~~a estris Western meadowlark Sturnella ~e<electa Loggerhead shrike ~Lanius udovicianus Western kingbird Eastern kingbird ~Tranus v~ertica is White-crowned sparrow Zonotric~hia euco hr s Sage sparrow Say's phoebe ~sa arnis ~sa a ~sa a Manmal s Mule deer Odocoil eus hemi onus Coyote Canis latrans Bobcat ~Lnx rufus Badger Taxidea taxus Skunk ~Me hi t i s ~me hi t i s Weasel Mustela frenata Raccoon ~Proc on 1otor Beaver Castor canadensis Muskrat Ondatra zibethica P orcupi ne Ereth>zoon ursa Blacktail jackrabbit Le us caTITornzcus Cottontail rabbit Ground squirrel Pocket mouse Perom acus ~arvus Deer mouse P. manicu atus H ar vest mouse Ileithrodontom s m~e alotis Grasshopper mouse Pocket gopher ~Thcmom s sp.
| |
| Reptiles Northern Pacific Rattlesnake Crotalus viridus orecranus Great Basin gopher snake P>tuo his~me anoleucus (bull snake) esert i col a Western yellow-bellied racer Northern si de-blotched l i zard Uta stansburiana stansbur>ana Western fence lizard Short-horned lizard Great basin spadef oot toad ~Sca hio us intermontanus Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.2-1b COLUMBIA RIVER BIOTA O anise 0 anise ~ nice Or an1se Phy)sra Acantnocepna) ~ Phyl un Arthropoda phy)un Artnroooda (contd) Order Hee)ptera Heoechinorhvnchvs rutili C)ass Arachnida Order Decapoda Hotonecta Sp H. cristatus Barris sp.
| |
| Pffphotn ncnus bulbocolli Bulbodactnitis sp.
| |
| ~Hd Aranedia sp.
| |
| I p
| |
| ~t Pacifasticvs ()en)us
| |
| ~Sl ara sp.
| |
| Class Insects Order Co))sebo)a Class Crustacea Phy)uo Bryotoa Order Co ) eoptera Feei ly Hypogastvr)dae Order Anostraca I'I II p. ~Grinvs sp. Phy)va Tard)Brads
| |
| ~PI 11 ~ p. ~lt t h I It Order Epheeero ptera lh hl IP.
| |
| Phy)ua Ho))uses Order Diplostraca Sg~ore ~ind is Parole to hlebia C)ass Castropoda :cornuta
| |
| ~Ofa ha~tra ~bt n urus
| |
| ~litt I 1~III I I A~)na tSSSS nguu)
| |
| Euhmn Ah))'.
| |
| p
| |
| ~ph fl sa ~nut I I I 1111 IIN III A. ~eff$ ni A. ~ua t n ~irk ~illh E. sp.
| |
| . iV III It Piahero)a nuttal1 ii A. ~sat
| |
| ~Hera enia sp.
| |
| ~5t << I ri ~n~ri HE S'tenoneefa $ D.
| |
| Radix ~a onset G~ll
| |
| ~dl
| |
| ~fl ff
| |
| ~pl
| |
| ~I vroxv itSnnt~leH
| |
| ~~ll
| |
| ~Ill t G Order Plecoptera
| |
| ~Ate he~pter r ~ral1a
| |
| ~II Id ~ac~st tc g ~rr 1 ~trf n Ill P,
| |
| td
| |
| ~Lea
| |
| .
| |
| ~tl I ~annie ~) ~ a ~~4 Pt
| |
| ~)so anus sp.
| |
| I p'lanorb1s sp.
| |
| 5D. ~Sca holebSgis ~i<1 Boseina sp.
| |
| ~ll I Perlodes aeericana Otdet Tfichaoteta Class Bivalvia B. )OeL))is Gl
| |
| ~ Nt tl llf ~)S O r i~tv SOtdfdvS ~dd h I III I
| |
| Itif tu~tlf
| |
| : g. ~tnt' ~Hh p.
| |
| ~I4 II tl I ~4tf H. I 1f I Pisidiue ~ol It)sieve ~NII I I Il Anodofl ta SSe+tSSSve Anodonta californiensis
| |
| ~dl
| |
| ~PI I ~dl~dl
| |
| ~Ill
| |
| ~
| |
| I Lienoohi)us sp,
| |
| ~dill p.
| |
| Phylve Annelida Order Calanoida
| |
| ~P<< I ld II Rhacoohila coloradensis Class Olipochaeta
| |
| ~snth~oca ~u sp ~PI N tl Id C. ~Cl1 td t~ft C. ~vetna
| |
| ~C C. wee)a
| |
| ~Cha to~at r sp. $. ~bi us toeus sp.
| |
| i l~atu ~thoro 1 I tl hi GIII C)ass Hirudinea D~ia ~ t I M II t Dlacobdella ~rontsf ra D. ash)andi ~ht Id l fit
| |
| ~Br etang ~ttthokt 1
| |
| \ Id I t hi
| |
| ~lt 1l Id VG ld
| |
| ~The
| |
| ~P! cicola sp.
| |
| ll Son ll rude He)oboe)l ~ ~sa na'I l I
| |
| ~
| |
| Order Cyclopoida Order Aeon) poda sp.
| |
| Order Lepidoptera
| |
| ~Att Order Oiptera
| |
| ~lit
| |
| ~Garutatu sp, Tiovlidae Chironoeidae Sievliue vtttatea Sievliue sp.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 EP TABLE 2. 2-lb (Cc)std 0 snssn Or anise Oraanisn 0 4niin Phyl)ss Cyanopnyta (contd) Phylun Platynelninthes Phyl)44 chrysopnyta (contd)
| |
| Phylun Chlorophyta Class Turbel'larla Ul
| |
| ~5L1 I
| |
| I I th I
| |
| C. ~eaieulus t It
| |
| ~ll ~IC 0 I~hi ~dl II I I F
| |
| )u I Class Treoatooa I Nediun groductux C.SI I hl ll n Itl 0~Ii I ~ill 5 5~Ixx ~fl Id ~.
| |
| ~tl Ãh I ~dl 0 I ~ td p.
| |
| C. ~vul eris N4VICula ~colon
| |
| ~tlI ~ 5
| |
| ~
| |
| I I T lanata '1 turuida T. tcnuis I 5pp. 'GC C.
| |
| C, Pl t ~PI I dl 50.
| |
| O~~onlus sp. ~l R~ht I U \ It. t Ihl I
| |
| ~51 50. C. I III Cslatnriv ~rte sns I 0.
| |
| ~al cistu'Ia I
| |
| 0~Ii
| |
| ~Ill Pl do 50 C.
| |
| C. ~cl 0~iI&I I
| |
| ~PHI
| |
| ~~ "
| |
| O ~asian I! C. tunids
| |
| .'lessons spp.
| |
| C~lt 5 "I'.
| |
| phyiuss pyrrnopnyta Rl I dl IP.
| |
| t 0, i vs un R~bt d ~al I
| |
| PsndorIna sp. ~<tsmla ~tur ida RR~ldl Rt lb
| |
| ~CI I P ~
| |
| ~55 phyiu)4 Tracheoohyta 0 P llhl I I f ll" N~It this d~lssi 4 4 I I, I I li. ~al F4nily NlJsdsctst Phylus Chrysophyta C~t
| |
| ~RRIcura 5P.
| |
| ~ale 0~! ~.
| |
| ~pl I Class Cestoidea Ph.
| |
| Fanily Kycracharltaccat IIRI 5
| |
| : g. ~l11 ic I II I \ I I I rttriell4 ~ll nesri Anschsris sp. ~PI
| |
| ~. nul I
| |
| I
| |
| ~~l I I tl Phylun Cysnophyta N. Variant Fa)sily kt)xnactae 0.
| |
| Ir ~11
| |
| ~lt xs
| |
| ~CI& 11 A~vl Il b U I p.
| |
| C. ~III s~ari ~nn ksn)ns SO.
| |
| ~PI
| |
| ~CI Il 5p.
| |
| C. I I I~ 9. ~hal Fanlly Polygonactse I~It I \I Q. ~II sp.
| |
| dl I onus) 0~th I I I \ 0.
| |
| ~5\
| |
| gravid g ~pa
| |
| .
| |
| S. s. v4r. ) inuta 9, Q. Lrrin Fanily Ceratophyl 1scese f~ht I I 0.
| |
| : g. ~nels area I I ~t g, ~ndI C~ll 5 I
| |
| I I
| |
| 11 I
| |
| lldl Il I
| |
| ~51 II ~t ~lt t g. ~nuI h~n Faaily Cyptractse Phy'lun Aschelninthts
| |
| ~
| |
| var, O~lt ~l Id Fst)ily Juncaceae
| |
| ~ft1 Class Rotifera F.
| |
| F.
| |
| ~ftlsui I P. favasux P. Jmmhm Anls)4 1s Phyl)44 Protozoa O~aidia Sp.
| |
| Ill t ~.
| |
| retail P.
| |
| 5~It F, V~Ire
| |
| ~ I I 11 os I P. ~subfu cun P. ~tcnu R~l
| |
| ~sat I I II RI0,, 0.
| |
| ~Not
| |
| ~PI lca sp.
| |
| tl 50.
| |
| 0.
| |
| S. u. vsr. d~anic
| |
| ~. I t I I I p.
| |
| 11 0.
| |
| S. acus l~b ~55 Zersteita Sp.
| |
| I. rii Poriftra S. ~ens S. ~michel I 4 g.
| |
| ~ae t O~fu t11 Phyl)44
| |
| ~IllI ~ll Class Nematode S.
| |
| C~f 111
| |
| ~l ~Slots ~corsxx Phylut Coe'lenterats I
| |
| C~
| |
| Rl P
| |
| h h P
| |
| ~Hdrs sp. ~lt I p.
| |
| I* I ~
| |
| ft . I. I. Si, It. 5. 051 5, R. C. 51 bbl Took
| |
| ~lt p.
| |
| t ) CI 111 11 Fifth edition, NcOrau-Hill J. H. Hybakkcn, central Tooloa, Co.. Ncu Tort, I
| |
| | |
| MNP-2 ER-OL TABLE 2.2-lb Cont'd Or dani sm Phylum Chordata Cl'ass Cyclostcmata intosohenus tridentatus Pacific Lamprey Tamoetra avresi River Lamprey Class Osteichthyes Acioense. transmontanus White Sturgeon llncornvnchus :shawvtscha Chinook Salmon
| |
| : 5. nerxa Sockeye or Blueback Salmon Coho or Silver Salmon Talmo ~asrdnert Steelhead or Rairbow Trout c arK1 Cutthroat Trout Yal~ve Tnus malma Oolly Varden Trosoolum TwTTIImscnt Nountain Whitefish
| |
| %toss scold!as!Ilia American Shad unseat~amus ~aryan nchus Nountain Sucker co manlmlus Bridgelip Sucker T, ~macroenes us Largescale Sucker ivor!nut caroio Carp ines !n Tench
| |
| %icnar asonius balteatus Redside Shiner
| |
| ~tcnocne us or.oonensls tlorthern Squawfish Acroches us alutaceus Chiselmouth
| |
| ~acne's ceunnus Peamouth Longnose Oace 4I . cataractae K. ~esto Us Speckled Oace K. ~&CETUS Leopard Oace Tc:aiulus nehu'lusus Brown Bullhead
| |
| ~me as Black Bullhead
| |
| : 4) T. ~nata ls Yellow Bullhead T ounctatus Channel Catfish
| |
| 'Kaster osteus aculeatus Threespine Stickleback
| |
| ~r"a ra ves=ens Yellow Perch T;!austen!on vi:reuo Walleye LeoomTs macrocnTrus Bluegill L. Gllloosils Punpkinseed-tlmsoxls mlnul arts White Crappie K nlorm~aaca atua Black Crappie Hicrooterus sa~moides Largemouth Bass N. dolomieui Smallmouth Bass iot~aora Burbot T.ottus asoer Prickly Sculpin be ~lllQll Piute Sculpin 4I . ~aero exus Reticulate Sculpin r II ot 'll!US Torrent Sculpin C. Uairai Not.led Sculpin 7ercoos Ts bransnountana Sand Rolle~
| |
| Tor annus ~cuoeavormls Lake Whitefish Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WKP-2 ER TABLE 2.2-2 NUMBER OF SPANNING FALL CHINOOK SALMON AT HANFORD, 1947-1977
| |
| ( o ulation estimate based on 7 fish er redd)
| |
| Number of Population Year Redd Estimate 1947 240 1680 1948 785 5500 1949 330 2310 1950 316 2210 1951 314 2200 1952 539 3770 1953 149 1040 1954 157 1100 1955 64 490 1956 92 640 1957 872 6100 1958 1485 10400 1959 281 1970 1960 295 2070 1961 939 6570 1962 1261 8830 1963 1303 9120 1964 1477 10300 1965 1789 12500 1966 3101 21700 1967 3267 22900 1968 3560 24900 1969 4508 31600 1970 3813 26700 1971 3600 25200 1972 876 6130 1973 2965 20800 1974 728 5100 1975 2683 18800 1976 1951 13657 1977 3240 22680 (a) Redd counts obtained by aerial surveys- Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| ~i!!!:-':: SAGEBRUSH/BLUEBUHCH WHEATGRASS
| |
| ~iiii!!i: SAGEBRUSH-BITlERBRUSH
| |
| ~///j SAGEBRUSH.
| |
| COLUMBIA
| |
| ':':::::.'::::'::.',:::;:::::;::::::::::::j::-':::::P.'.!,:..".:.'.':', R I VER
| |
| -N-YAKIMA RIVER 0 5 MILES DISTRIBUTION OF MAJOR PLANT QSFZNGTON PUBLZC PORN SUPPLY SYSTEM Ol1MUNITIES (VEGETATION TYPES) 'iE'RDA H PSS NUCL~ PROJECT NO. 2 HANFORD RESERVATION, Ervizonmen~3. Repo t BENTON COUNTY I NA
| |
| " ZG. 2.2-1
| |
| | |
| ~~ WATERFOWL SWALLOWS CARNI VOROUS F I SH
| |
| ~
| |
| HERBIVOROUS F I SH FORAGE F I SH ADULT INSECTS
| |
| ~~GRAYISH DFATH AND FECES (BACTERIAL BREAKDOWNI MOLLUSCS ZOOPLANKTON MACROPHYTES PHQOPLANKTON, WA ER
| |
| % i/
| |
| SEDIMENTS IINORGANIC AND ORGANIC)
| |
| WASHINGTON 'PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY FOOD-WEB OF 'COLUMBIA RIVER SYSTEM'PPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 Environmental Report FIG. 2.2-2
| |
| | |
| 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1,2
| |
| ~ 10 0.8 0.6 0,4 0.2 0
| |
| A S 0 N D J F M A M J J A S 1963 1964 FIGHT WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM SEASONAL FLUCTUATION OF WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 PLANKTON BIOMASS Environmental Report 2.2-3
| |
| | |
| 0.08 DR Y WE I GHT ASH+REE DRY WEIGHT N
| |
| 0.06 0.04 C)
| |
| C3 C5 C)
| |
| I I
| |
| I I,
| |
| g I
| |
| I 0.02 I I
| |
| I'I I
| |
| II' I . J.
| |
| LJ I I I
| |
| I I I
| |
| I I 0
| |
| AUG DEC JAN MAY 1963 1964 WASHINGTON PUBLXC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM SEASONAL FLUCTUATXON OF NET WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 PRODUCTXON RATE OF PERIPHYTON Environmental Report FXG. 2.2-4
| |
| | |
| CHUM 8000 COHO
| |
| ~
| |
| 4000 M le 0 FALL
| |
| ~
| |
| 1966 COMMERCIAL CHINOOK FISHING SEASONS
| |
| ~, ',
| |
| OPEN SUMMER STEELHEAO SHAD SOCKEYE .--
| |
| 80 SUMMER 25 70 SPRING CHINOOK r NAA 20 o CHINOOK O 60 15 m WATER TEMPERATURE, BONNEVILLE, DAM ES 50 1965 10~
| |
| : 5. 40 WINTER STEELHEAO SMELT
| |
| 'N.
| |
| JAN FEB MAR APR 'MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 'CT NOV OEC
| |
| ~ Dotted Bonneville Dam Fishway data 1966
| |
| ~ Slant estimated based on gill netting in lower river
| |
| ~ Crosshatch estimated based on 17-yr average run size and timing of gill net catches
| |
| ~ Vertical Bonneville Dam data (minimum estimate, not quantitative)
| |
| TIMING OF UPSTREAM MIGRATIONS IN WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM THE LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 Environmental Report FIG- 2.2-5
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER
| |
| : 2. 3 METEOROLOGY The Hanford Reservation lies in the Lower Columbia Basin, lowest elevation of any part of Central Washington. The low elevation assists in creating a relatively mild continental steppe climate, subject to somewhat wide seasonal range in temperature. Annual precipitation of approximately 6. 4 in.
| |
| falls mainly during the winter months. The average summer temperature is 73.7'F, while during the winter months the mean daily temperature is 32.4'F.
| |
| The primary source of meteorological data for WNP-2 is the 240-ft tower with a complete meteorological data system, which operated between March 1974 and June 1976. The system will be reactivated upon plant fuel410-ft load. The Hanford Hanford Meteorology Meteorology Station (HMS) and the Tower located about 14 miles northwest of the WNP-2 site provided the data for the construction permit Environmental Report. A 23-ft temporary meteorology tower was was operated for 2 years previous to the installation of the 240-ft tower for the purpose of evaluating cooling tower orientation.
| |
| The meteorological equipment located at these sites is discussed in Subsection 6.1.3. Table 2.3-1 presents the averages and extremes of various climatic elements at Hanford revised to include data up to and including 1975. More comprehensive climypylogical summaries of Hanford data are presented by Stone based on observations up to 1970. The data for the following subsections are detailed in the tables and figures. While the tables and discussion of the onsite meteorological measurement program pertain specifically to the first year of data (April 1, 1974 March 31, 1975),
| |
| the second annual cycle of data displayed the same general characteristics. The complete data set is presented and.
| |
| discussed in Section 2.3 of the WNP-2 Final Safety Analysis Report.
| |
| 2.3.1 Stabilit , Wind S eed and Direction Annual average wind roses for the site are given in Figures 2.3-1 to -6. The wind rose in Figures 2.3-1, -2 and -3 are for onsite data for the three measurement heights (7, 33 and 245 ft). Figure 2.3-4 gives the onsite wind rose breakdown by four Hanford stability classes at the 33-ft level. HMS wind roses for the 200-ft level derived from 15 years of data (1955-1970) are given in Figure 2.3-5. Surface winds at various stations in the region are summarized as 8-point roses in Figure 2.3-6. The onsite joint frequency of wind speed, direction and stability data for winds at 33 ft are stability contained in Table 2.3-2 for five classes of Hanford criteria while Table 2.3-3 contains the annual summaries for 2.3-1 Amendment May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 7, 33, and 245 ft for direction and speed. Tables 2.3-4 through -15 present joint distributions of wind speed and direction on a monthly basis (April 1974 through March 1975) for the onsite data.
| |
| Table 2.3-16 shows the joint distribution of stability, wind speed and direction derived from 15 years (1955-1970) of data taken at the HMS tower. These seasonal and annual tables are based on winds at 200 ft and stability defined by surface and 200 ft.
| |
| the temperature difference between the The climatological representativeness of the year of onsite data used in the diffusion computations is listed in Tables 2.3-17 and -18. Table 2.3-17 is a month by month comparison of climatic elements at HMS with longer term values. Average wind speed, insolation, precipitation, and relative humidity were close to the long-term values.
| |
| Table 2.3-18 presents a summary comparison of diffusion elements computed from the 1 year of WNP-2 data with similar elements computed from 15 years HMS data. The difference in the number of recorded calms is primarily the result of the lower threshold of the onsite instruments, these differences may also be partly the result of topographic influences.
| |
| The wind direction frequencies cannot be expected to necessarily be comparable because of the separation between the stations.
| |
| Comparison of the HMS and onsite data demonstrate differences which are readily attributable to local topographical effects such as the orientation of the river valley near the site.
| |
| Although the differences in the stability classes are partly the result of the layer used for the stability definition, there is some evidence that part of the greater percentage of stable conditions at WNP-2 may be a real difference.
| |
| Tables 2.3-19a through -19h contain joint. frequency summaries of the onsite data grouped by Pasquill stabilities categories.
| |
| The nearest routine radiosonde data that may be applied to this region are obtained at Spokane, the only station located in the relatively flat basin region between the Cascade Mountain Range to the west and the Rocky Mountains to the east. These data will be representative in a regional sense, but cannot be expected to be exact in near surface atmospheric structure as a result of the distance (180 km) and elevation differences (site ~440'MSL, Spokane +2350'MSL).
| |
| Table 2.3-28 gives the monthly average daily maximum and minimum mixing height data for Spokane.
| |
| 2~3 2 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP- 2 ER 2.3.2 Temperature Table 2.3-20 contains a temperature comparison between the WNP-2 site and HMS. These onsite temperatures are from the 8-ft level on the.newmeteorological system. By assuming an adiabatic lapse rate of 0.548 F/100 ft, over the 283-ft elevation difference between HMS and the WNP-2 site, a temperature difference can be expected of about, 1.5'F between the dry bulb temperature data measured at the two sites.
| |
| : 2. 3. 3 ~Humidit Table 2.3-21 gives a comparison of monthly wet bulb temperatures from the 1 year of onsite data and HMS. Table 2.3-22 contains the frequency occurrence of wet bulb values as a function of time of day based on data from the onsite meteorological system.
| |
| Figures 2.3-7 to -10 indicate diurnal and monthly and annual averages and extremes of temperature and humidity at HMS.
| |
| Summaries of onsite humidity data have been prepared both on a monthly and annual basis in joint frequency wind speed direction formats. In addition, computer tapes of hourly summarized operation including humidity data have been generated.
| |
| During July 1975 the moisture in the lower atmosphere at HMS was abnormally high. In the period of record, 1957-1970, hourly wet bulb temperatures in a range 70 to 74'F had occurred an average of three times each July. In the period July 4 through July 12, 1975,,there were 104 hourly observa-tions in the range 70 to 74'F. On July 9 there were 17 consecutive hours in that range. Wet bulb temperatures o 75'F have not occurred in the Hanford area until this episode.
| |
| On July 8, 9, and 10 there were a total of seven such hourly observations. The air temperatures were also high during this period. The HMS average relative humidity for July 37.5% compared to the record of 40.5 set in 1955.
| |
| 1975'as Figures 2.3-7 to -10 and Table 2.3-1 and Tables 2.3-23 present additional climatological humidity information from the HMS.
| |
| 2.3.4 Precipitation Precipitation data are presented in Figures 2.3-11 and -12, and Tables 2.3-24 and -25. Tables 2.3-26a through e are joint wind direction and speed summaries of rainfall inten-sities over the year of onsite data. No deviation from the regional low precipitation pattern was found.
| |
| 2 ~ 3 3 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 2.3.5 High Velocity Winds Surveys of data on high winds over this region indicate that higher winds tend to occur at, the higher, more exposed elevations, although all sites in this region have experienced relatively high winds. High wind speeds result from squall lines, frontal passages, tight pressure gradients and thunder-storms. One small tornado has been observed on the Hanford Reservation. There is indication that this area has been affected by hurricanes, but no complete statistics are readily available that present frequency of occurrence of high winds produced or accompanied by a particular meteorological event. The highest reported winds produced at HMS by any cause are tabulated in Table 2.3-27. The Hanford tower is at a slightly higher elevation and hence might be expected to experience higher winds than at the WNP-2 site. Although based on different periods this tendency may be inferred from Tables 2.3-17 and 2.3-18. Figure 2.3-13(2) indicates the return probability of any peak wind gust at HMS again due to any cause. The highest recorded peak gust at the.
| |
| 50-ft level at HMS in the period 1945 to the present was 80 mph 2.3.6 Severe Weather E
| |
| Since the submission and the construction permit Environmental Report the local climatology for thunderstorms and tornados has not significantly changed. No additional observations of tornados have been made in the Hanford region. The frequency of occurrrence of thunderstorms has been updated in Table 2.3-1.
| |
| : 2. 3-4 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.3-la AVERAGES AND EXTREMES OF CLIMATIC ELEMENTS AT HANFORD (BASED ON ALL AVAILABLE RECORDS TO AND INCLUDING THE YEAR 1975)
| |
| T(MJ(RA(Uk( Iefl D(CR(( DAYS (IA5t IS Sl JR(cltIIAIIOH IIHCH(SI (XIR(M( AV(RAC($ Ok 'IOTA(5 HII Hls AV(RAC(5 it)1'IHS (Xfktwts H(ATIHC C OO ( I H C HI 2 HJS IOIAIS AHD T(AR OR $ (ASOH OS OCCUkk(HCE DAILT J(AXIMUJI DAILY MIHIMIJM H(5 HIS IOIAI5 I'140 H15 IOTA(5 SHOW. IC( y(LLETS ISI((II n(2'NJSTTJ(t(RAIVRE AVERAC($ Al IVC(ksf A(44(AL $42 n>>e
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| LCW(5T AJDAJAISL2 NN
| |
| ~o a '(VC(ksf w(HNka JTJ ILI n)3-N K etl (Cw(STWIHT(R- - 242 NQW oo o>> H(ceksf stk(HC(H.AuV ski WJ 2(
| |
| >>e 8 IVI(ST 57RIHC ILO >>55 eo eo M H(c(LSI SUJUKR U I AJ 7L1 lnl LCWfsf SUM(OX Jal N5(
| |
| )IO 222 2t.4 ~ L5 ns) III n)0 .2 5>> >> nn 5 NN X4$ IQO n(o N( 55) 0 0 0 4Q LI7 NJD 41) NQ>> LCC INI Ll 2)4 n)0 1.1 n>> LLD fel, 454 JL4 )LI (L5 NSI JLI NN 72 1171 JI W( ) n)o $5 11)2 .21 NSO 771 IN7 n)4 S74 n>> 0 D 0 4(0 LQ NQ NQ>> L24 IN4 Ii 2(0 1114 $ 4 Il 55 340 I)
| |
| (HURST SAll (S~ 544 IN) 5LS 3)1 451 44'I N24 )ki WS 1) (NO 2( WO 5( IOQ I 1155 Nl JN 155 ~N W1 0 0 0 IL'U LI4 N57 0 NQ>> a>> nn 4) Ll nsl N51>> LOC(ST SA(L 414 Wi Ate. 4LI NO SLI 5t.i l(N ~ LS 1155 15 ION (I N($ a N(4 Q n)5 )N $ 22 n)5 IQ N(1 I 5 NQ 0 n5 4)l L22 nn 0 Nno 4>> nsl 1 1 1 lt75>>
| |
| Mey 7$ 4 IL4 4(1 4LC Wl n)l a) NN>> 41 ION 70 NN Il 15( 15( 55 Wl N Wl 11 115 ) (142 aa IO) NJJ 0 N)l L31 N72 I 1 I 540 0 N(2.1175 tkfC(tl TATIOI IO(A(5 U ILI IL2 5$ 4 Q.i JL( I(72 450 N5) In NIJ 5 Il NJI 3) N)) N W) ) It54 Nl NO NQ )t NJI 454 IQ nso 0 Nn La NN 0 D 0 0 CRflltsf AJIRJAL IL($ n>>
| |
| Ju(y 1L1 4LI JLS CLl WO JI( W) ln 11)1 NN W5 (I n)5 ) 22 N)S 0 'N5>> ~ N $ (1 NQ IN) als an N(4 0 N)le 45 NN 0 0 0 0 (EAST AJRRJAL ).5 WJ Ni )L) JL) IL5 INJ Q.t W( ln 7NI Q IOTO II NQ lon 5 INO 0 ION>> )N 501 WT 15 W( alo Ln N20 0 NSS>> act 55 0 0 0 0 IC( y(UBS ($(f(TJ Se(L 71.4 $ 41 452 JLJ NQ SLC NN )32 Il50 Sl ln(e 72 JOSS N24 5 IN 1177 5 INJ IOJ 2(4 IOU NJO aa LN IO(7 I Wlo 4Q IN1 0 0 0 0 SHOW.
| |
| OR(AT($ 15(AS(HAL (LI Nls li
| |
| : 45) ~ 41 5$ 0 SO.O l>>2 4LC N)3 10 n)3 )l lt35 40 )O($ >> 11)$ 377 ~ 71 ION Ja Wl 2 lt NJI 0 n5. asl 272 NSJ 0 NIT L11 5>>
| |
| ~ I Ls >>5 Ls 55 Ls nn 4) 1157 Sl (L4 )L5 ~ kt 4(0 ION ~ )I) 155 15 >>5 N 1155 52 N>>o I N$5 N7 (cct 1155 5U IW 0 0 0 444 La N)(o 471 1144 L) III Nss >>55 Sl W4 (EAST SEAS(HAL 24.0 )IJ 420 ION TLS ION 41 N)) .3 ION 54 IOJS .27 len (%l (224 W( QI INT 0 0 0 4N 2.5) 531 411 11(4 La IO>> H N.l NQ LI N4$ III INI NU.>>75W(HO 5t(EO AVtklQ (eeyhl Ju(y Joe Ju(y S>>4 July Dec Je>>c July Ju(y f>>4. 0(L Juew SQ. JHC Dec.
| |
| Yeee (L3 SLI IL~ INO n(o n>> nso>> Nls .27 NN 527) le(0 IO>> >>5>> $ (l INO N5>> LN LCC l(a I(47 Ltl ION ILO N.D Wi Ns( W( JOCK 51 AJIRJAL L) l(elo (CREST ANNAl 4.) Nsl W4.>>1S Rt(ATIVE IAJJHDIIYAV(RAQ (OJ WIHD (util RELA'IIV( HUMIDITY (5( SLY COV(R(SCAI(010 SOLAR RADIATIOH (IAHCL(YSI H(CJLST AJRIJAL $ 1.'I n>>o NW($1 A(II(A( 41.4 WJ IHI'H1$ AVERAC($ HH I'715 AVC. I'1$ ) lt15 (Xlk(M(
| |
| IHS Hls AV(RAC($ t(AX COSTS HI4 H15
| |
| ~ AV(RACES H(4 H75 (Xfk(M(5 15UHRIS( 10 SUHS(IJ DAILY IOTA(5 OAILT IOIALS Wi.>>5 Sir Cata AV(RAC($
| |
| (s(RQ(st 10 svws(T. 5cA(f (y)o IRC(RST AJRIJAL Li lwi
| |
| 'Ry LO>>e(51 AJ44JAL Ll ION
| |
| >>o RB eo >>
| |
| e>>
| |
| u>>
| |
| ~e nsl N5 SOAR RADIATICH 5= IL' X AV(RAC( Oll LT ICfA(((AHC((YSJ K K K H(CJ(ST A(44(AL )a NJl Jeu. Li 14) NJJ Ll Sw N72 52 ILC NOO (40 W) >>5>> ll Wl 1. ~ 10 lo(1 UO l)4 >>5 Q Ws 171 Wl 14 nno I(X(EST AJOCJAE )57 NQ Sea J.l Le WI L4 4S sw NJI 740 (41 W) 5(0 Wl N5>> N INI JA Ll N(l Lt NQ JCI 134 Net 14( N5( Ql n>> 37 NN>>
| |
| Mek Ll H(7 W( 51 JO sw NN )LI Qt n(o 4.0 Ws NJ(o (2 Lt Lt n>> Lt W5 )Q 3Q INS Xi 'Wl 5Q NQ Q N12 le. kl ILI NJJ>> 1X 5 SSW NJJ 44$ 4LS IN) )4'I W4 115>> ns( 44 Ll INI LJ Nsl (5 SN 55 )N N4) XH N72 ls NN Mey Lt )CS n(5>> LC 5 SSW NQ LI) ILO 11(I )Ll 115>> 1 ns) LI 1.7 Na L) INO S74 Q( NJO Sll INJ 7(7 IO>> Q INI Ll tll Nn U 72 sw NS7 )LS sks IOOO X(0 lon NJJ. a N4(o L) ID IO>> Il Wl QC Ql NQ S4) Ns) Ql nn I)7 N4S July Li 1.4 NQ LC 55 WSW NQ )LI ~ 4$ W5 2LO n>> n72 le)i Ll LS nN at ns) 4>> 5( n5 SQ NSS NN IQ >>72 So(L LO 7.5 11 RJ ION Wl LO 5, ~
| |
| (4 sw 45 55W INI ns)
| |
| 'Nl ()I INI 444 5$ ) n>> )Ll 2(.$
| |
| 1174 NJJ>>
| |
| NQ>> n Wl NQ>>
| |
| ll LO IOQ LI n>> L( Ith ai 1155 W 45 421 ei)
| |
| N)5 55 Qs Wl 771 N>> 51( NJO 5>> X(7 41 lt>>
| |
| 0(L Ll LI ION ~ I Q 5$ w WO SLO N2 NQ Q.S Wl >>5>> a n(2 LD 55 )1 NQ JQ 217 WI IN nls (N 55 )) 574 Heu LI 7.1 WS I.t Q ssr INO 7$ 5 CL I N72 4(1 W) 55>> N N>> 7.4 O.l NJJ 4,2 (157 )32 Ia N57 17 IN( 25 NTI N NQ D>>L Ll I.) INI I'I 5 SW N>> Xl1 Hls n(o 410 NQ NJS>> 24 N72 Ll ~2 NQ i,l 55( IN 1170 Q N44 W n72 1 NJI Aee. Dec Ju(y Dec. July Oec. Aui Ju(y DM. Juue Dec.
| |
| Y co( 1.7 ILI NJJ a sw Im $ 11 IO>> JLO N>> N5>> NSI S.t 1.2 NQ 44 11$ $ >>5 IOQ Ql NJI Im
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.3-1b (sheet 2 of 2)
| |
| NUP(lfk Of DAYS II'Iis 11150 Uo Lo NVJ(lik Of DAYS NY H(AVY TOC Pk(CIP. SNOW CLIARM ) T(PRUS SXY COVER, 50 105)I C(f Ak LO CLO(PDY I>>ttND(RSIORN5 IVIS. Ni MI. Ok (f550 0.10 INCH OR P(OR( 1.4 INCH OR Not(
| |
| CRfAI(5fAM(t(AL(INOYA Nl 'N51 IIASIAPDAJAL (144 7N 15 >>04 c((LJDTa.nr(NTHssxycotr(L salossp Ck(AT(sr APPAJAL(IO(4-50 Nl >>He IIA51 APDA(AL(10(D 750 N NH e 12 HLM(fRSTORtks 7 IM) 0 1055e 7 10 27 19>> 11 IN) LI >>4$ Wt 4 1070 0 )in. 10 >>$ 0 IOIJe rAfAI($1 Aptk(AL(10(STN 2) nn. (70(5.>>e fek 5 1 >>No 7 17 24 >>$ 4 Q >>4( Nn. It>>e Il W) 1071 ~ 5 Wle 0 nn. 4 >>75e NHe L(AST AMeJAL 4 12 2 >>41 0 5 n Wk )04$ lt>>e lt5e 5 >>51 It5o 4 >>57 0 >>5e 2 It57e 105e (VIS. IN WLI CR IISSP 12 N42 I IM) II I) n IN) 4 N$ 4 WO It5e I Npse >>Tie 5 Wl 4 Nne 0 PCAVY fOC Wy N 105 2 INO II II N Nio 10)l IYA 107(e I NSI >>5e WIe 0 NQe 0 Ctfkl(SI $ (AS(POLL(WS YA 42 H)0 51 Jueee 70 n IMI s nn. n n 15 n5. 5 Woe Nn. W)e I ltil 105e t >>$ 0 4 Nne 0 L(A5I $ (AS(y(AL(WS.FA ~ l94I<t Ju(y 24 INO I) Wi 1 It4 I IOOI >>7$ nn. 0 >>7( ~ 0 ltne 0 (IllINO( OR NOR(
| |
| AVS N 30 155 II 1041 7 I) NQ 4 11$ $ >>$ ) >>7(e I IYA N5e ~ >>5 0 itice 0 PR( CIPI IAI I CN Sept 15 27 n5 4 1940 I 1 I) Wt I >>75 NH 1075e I >>$ 7 n5. S 1039 0 n>>e 0 CRfATfs(AMRJAL(10(4 TN H 1030 Ocr n N 1070 105 I I) n nn )070 It5o ltpie 4 W2 )07( ~ >>$ 0 0 >>n. I 105 195e IIA5'IAM47AI(3004.57 n )04$
| |
| Nee. 10 lt)7 n5. 4 25 Itne 5 )tel I) WS 10(4 10 >>5 0 4 )0$ 5 Nice 0>> ) 7 N72e I LO(to 4 n 21 NQ ll ltne Itil It>>e 17 >>30 Wte >>4( 0 >>He 4 19N Wie SNOut LO INCH (R AKNf AVO Jete Dec. Jute Dec Oec. SepL Jeu.
| |
| l(2 1955 0 ISN N(2 Wt ~ ltpre i@A Wi 0 >>7$ e 7050 Ck(ANSI $ (A)CHALIWt JN 5 N)$ -S4 L(A51 5(AS(y(AL(104.5I 0 IOS1.51 I IN. Ca NORE SHOU CN Ck(ktko NUP(lfk Oi DAYS 4)0($ 10757 NVP(l(k Of OATS Iltll.ltl)P CRfA551 $ (ASONAL (W4. YA 40 r oa Jeotf skp)U cN cpo. J(AC cuss 40 HJH oa ct(Arra NIN. \TAP. )2 (N D(LOU WPL I(HP DOR If(CW (fASt $ (ASCNAL (l0(4.7Q 0 P(AX CVS'I 49 NPH OR CRfA((k Ck(AT(sr AMR(AL(Ii($ YA ~I (EAST AMRJAL(10(S.TD I)
| |
| ~e o
| |
| r 25 0(AX. T(AP(RA(Vpf00 OR AIO(f CkfA(fsrAMtPJAL(HI2 50 15 )00)e LIA5(AM4JAI(ltll 50 )I Wi JHL 2) lt7$ e II Hn 0 )tile 0 0 0 li 20 WPe 10 )I Woe >>$ 3 4 4(ktL l(A(PERAIUR( ND (4 4 IOt(
| |
| (Wo N NMe Wlo O >>5 0 0 0 ) 5 >>4e n 2l Wie 5 1054 1 Nee, 0 1 le)4 I >>5e 4 0 0 I H>>e 14 2$ )We 4 )ONe 0 CtfAT(SIAMAPAL(>>12YA 32 Wl 4 I nn 0 WJ I >>5e 0 0 0 5 5 >>5 0 104e 0 ((AS I AMAJAL(>>lr 75( I IYA p(ey 0 It71 ~ 0 )04)e ) II Nri Npie I >>5e 0 0 I ) 103l 0 It5e 0 Juue 0 nn 0 it>> e Wte >>$ 3 0 Wo 105e 0 0 0 0 0 0 HAX. I(pep(RA(VRI 32 OR 0(LOW Ju(y 0 n(2 0 >>5e 2) 20 Wl le 14 HJI ~ W)e 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cit(ANSI S(AS(HAL (N)2 50 5)
| |
| I
| |
| >>5.$ 4
| |
| >>37.>>
| |
| AVO 0 5 NSI 0 >>7(e N >>1$ Wl 14 WI >>5e 0 0 0 0 0 0 L(A51 S(ASCNAL(NQ 50 Sepk 0 ION( O It>> 5 14 >>31 npoe 1 >>$$ e 105e 0 0 I 703) ~ 0 lt75e 0 Oc( 0 I ION 0 N>>e I lt)) l95e 0 I 2 >>5 >>5e 5 L2 NN 0 )0(2e 0 N(JL ILW(kir(NN32 OR tf((NT Nuo. n lt)5 5 nn 0 >>7(e 0 0 0 2 15 155 >>4e H Xl 1034 ltn I >>5e CR(AT(SI SfASOoLL (ltll IH Nl )0(e.n Dec. N N)5 >>$ 7 0 Wie 0 0 4 I N NN >>74 24 )I N4)e N 105 N 107$ e I(A)I5(Aso(AL Hin TH 5 1051.54 Jeu Ju(y July Jete Dec.
| |
| INA It72 WI~ >>71 ~ 187 le)e NIN, Iretp(RA(VIIOOR t(LOU CR(AT($'( $ (A)CHAL(1011 TH ll Wt&
| |
| IIA5I 5(AS(yoAL (lt)2 FA 0 Nii 5e Rfr(k(NC( NOHS LOCA( ICH ANO HIST(ay 0 CA(OR((skur Ppf5(NTLOCAI(ON>> WLIS NW 4'4: LCNC(TVC( l~'W I R(CIRANO. WAS(UNCTCN N AT C(N(k AND PR(C I 7(IAI(ONOls(RVAI (ONS (A(IT(ME44 (L(TAT(ON I)) i((I NO( 1(CVN (Ae T(L )NO Ots(RV ATI O5 (R Ol IOI2 (0 NM Wrk( RY VN(i(D 5IAT($
| |
| 0 L($ $ IVAN lo N(AVER DUREAU COOP(RATIVf Olsfktt(RS A'I A 5(i( AQUI
| |
| ~ A(50 (4 EARL(fk TIARS HW(IS(INN HI($(NIIOCAI((OL $ (pkf W4015fRVAIICNS HAV( t((N NAINIA(efD (y(A 24 Ht(VR A DAY tASIS DY Iptf(
| |
| D(rf(R(NT 1 RDA CCNTRACIORS.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-2a ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY FOR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES FOR WNP-2 BASED ON WINDS AT 33 FT AND TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 245 AND 33 FT VERY UNSTABLE (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN -2.5 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)
| |
| SPEED CLASS(NPH)
| |
| CALN }+3 4~7' 8 12 13 18 19~24 25 UP UNKND TOTAL NNE 0 0 0 0 0 0
| |
| | |
| '
| |
| 0 0 0 0 0
| |
| | |
| 1 ENE 5qf E
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 Q
| |
| -.
| |
| 0 0 --- " 0--
| |
| 0 0 0" -"
| |
| 0 0 "" 0 0
| |
| -0.- - 0 0,
| |
| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 qC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSE
| |
| | |
| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SS>>
| |
| HS
| |
| $4 S 0 0
| |
| Q 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| ---."
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 2
| |
| 1 0
| |
| 0 1
| |
| o 0
| |
| 0 1
| |
| '
| |
| 0 o
| |
| }
| |
| 1
| |
| '
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0-0 0
| |
| 2 1
| |
| 1 0,
| |
| KNk 0 h 0 0 0 0 0 0
| |
| 'A 0 0 p 0 0 0 n NN>> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VAR 0 0 0 0" -0 0 ~
| |
| 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CALu 0 0 0 o . n o o
| |
| '
| |
| O'.K'"0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 TOTAL 0 0 1 4 4 2 1 12 TABLE 2.3-2b ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY FOR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES. FOR WNP-2 BASED ON WINDS AT 33 FT AND TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 245 and 33 FT UNSTABLE (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN -1.5 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL -2.5 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)
| |
| SPEED CLAS S(HPH)
| |
| CALM }e3 4>>7 8-12 13"18 19 2u 25 UP UNKNO rOtAL NNE 0 11 50 26 11 0 0 98
| |
| - ~
| |
| gir ESE NE SE E
| |
| 0 0
| |
| -0 0
| |
| n 6
| |
| 3 2
| |
| 1 2}
| |
| 22 Cl 17 37 15 17 1 1 9
| |
| ~ --0 0
| |
| 1 0
| |
| ('
| |
| 0 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| '
| |
| --0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| -- 00 --
| |
| -
| |
| 43 40 2
| |
| 25 47 3 ~~
| |
| SSE 0 3 63 25 9P
| |
| | |
| 0 0 5 5>>
| |
| xsrt S 0 0
| |
| p 0
| |
| --"7 4
| |
| 3 5
| |
| uh 29 33 24 82 48 1?5 21 31 i?0 5
| |
| 7
| |
| }5 10 0
| |
| 0 1
| |
| 158
| |
| }20 107-9?.
| |
| 0 5 37 30 . 29 6 ? 110 Q,."
| |
| ~ tNN 0 7 28 15 19 17 6 92 Vh 0 31 21 15 lu - 9 0 8 49 37 13 3 1 0 111 0 8 82 ~
| |
| 3Q 0 0 0" 140--
| |
| V AR 0 13 42 5 0 0 o 0 60 CALH 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 0 UN~ sO 0 17 13 3 0 0 15 50 tntAL 0 95 637 uu3 2o8 75 . 2u 22 1504
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-2c (sheet 2 of 3)
| |
| ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY FOR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES FOR WNP-2 BASED ON WINDS AT 33 FT AND TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 245 AND 33 FT - NEUTRAL (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN -0.5 AND GREATER THAN EQUAL -1.5 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)
| |
| SPEED CLASS(HPH)
| |
| CALH 1 a-7 8-12 13-fII 19-2a 25-UP LINKNO TOT'L 0 18 38 18 2 0 0 2 78 ln '
| |
| 1---.
| |
| 0 18 23 t 2 O 5a EiE 0 18 32 12 F - -16 - 27 7 -
| |
| 0 n o Q
| |
| -o 0 1 63 51--
| |
| ESE 0 32 30 " 0 0 0 1 67 C,S 0 a3 8 a =
| |
| O . O 1 88 SSE 0 22 67 29 3 0 0 0 121 0,
| |
| -3" la -" ..1'-.-la" 8 0 23 66 73 31 ~
| |
| nb 1
| |
| SSk 0 33 62 83 65 8 3 2> I~
| |
| 32 a
| |
| > S>> 0 22 17 6 9 1 1 0 91 k
| |
| 4 >I 0 .18 3p 26.. 26 10 " 6 3 119 l> 0 33 a7 a7 a2 30 6 206
| |
| .
| |
| 1 k >> 0 33 77 53 38 2t
| |
| | |
| Hq'>> 0 81 38 1 a 2 0 2 176
| |
| .vra
| |
| ~
| |
| > 0 29 a2 ab 11 0 - 0 -0 -12>I 0 18 12 0 0 0 0 0 30 C gL>. 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 -
| |
| 0 0 O'.K'.0 0 3 2 3 0 0 0 a 12 TOTAI. 0 a33 733 512 285 103 25 33 212a TABLE 2.3-2d (sheet 2 of 3)
| |
| ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY FOR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES FOR WNP-2 BASED ON WINDS AT 33'T AND TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 245 AND 33 FT STABLE (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN 3.5 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL -0.5 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)
| |
| SPEED CLASS(>'PH)
| |
| CALH f>>3 a 7 8 12 13 18 19 2a 25-UP NKNO TOTAI
| |
| ~ Ia'E 0 a3 3a 5 0 0 0 0 82 0
| |
| .P3. 2 3 0 05 ir Q 3 EiE 28 35 8 ---- 0 0
| |
| 26 2
| |
| 2 0
| |
| 0 0 0 0
| |
| 6
| |
| | |
| 71 52 0 0 0 71 SE 0 ~
| |
| 31 ~
| |
| 2 1 0 138 Sc,c <<3 f 03
| |
| | |
| 0 123 12 1 285 S 0 1 fa fpa 38 f a 317
| |
| $
| |
| >>Ck jk 5>> -' --n 0 n
| |
| 39 3'5
| |
| <<5 108 83 68 75 33 47 52 3a 28 6
| |
| 6 3 4-fny-5 3
| |
| Sfo lna"
| |
| >> 0 ub 78 69 17 0 7'
| |
| >> ~, II 72 lll 139 82
| |
| ' 24 6 <<37
| |
| "--.
| |
| 0
| |
| >~ k 0 bo 176 136 33 *" ~
| |
| Q <<f2 I.;A 0 >>7 a an 7 0 0 26>i
| |
| ~ - ---n - "bn 1 55 1
| |
| 1O 1 0 0 1 1 27.
| |
| VA9 0 31 15 3 1 0 0 0 5n 1 0 0 0 --- 0 0 0 0 1 D>>l ~ .O 0 2 ln 6 o 0 21 ap TOT4L 1 760 1315 820 '95 1
| |
| "
| |
| * 77 la 65 33<<7
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.3-2e (sheet 3 of 3)
| |
| ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY FOR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES FOR WNP-2 BASED ON WINDS AT 33 FT AND TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 245 AND 33 FT VERY STABLE (TEMPERATURE CHANGE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL 3.5 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)
| |
| SPEED CLA SS(HPH)
| |
| CALH fe3 4~7 8>> } 2 13ii 1 8 ]9e24 25 UP UNKNO TOT AL 0 69 41 1 0 0 0 0 1 11 NE 72 37
| |
| | |
| 0 3 0 0 0 Q 12
| |
| --- -7 0-1 ENE 0 56 28 0 0 0 0 0 84 8 0 ~
| |
| 5] -.0 - -0 -- 0" q vv ESE 0 up }] 0 0 0 0 0 Sc 0 20 31 ' 0
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 0 0 SSE 0 23 68 25 Q 0 2 118 S 0 23 67 50 0 0 0 3 143 SS~' 0 ?1 42 20 0 0 0 85 S'H
| |
| ~ - 0 31 25 5 0- -0
| |
| ?
| |
| 0 0 29 ?4 5 0 0 0 59 h 0 19 }6 11 0 0 0 46
| |
| -
| |
| k 'v 'vv 0 36 29 10 1 0 0 77
| |
| 'i vW''v 0 5] 62 ~
| |
| 17 ~ 0 0 0 1 32 59 75 5 39 y
| |
| N 0
| |
| 0 . 79 28
| |
| - ".- 5?.
| |
| 4 1-0 0-0 0 0 0 ip -
| |
| 1 1 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 3?
| |
| CAI vl 0 0 0 0 0 - . 0 0 0 0
| |
| '"v i. )Q 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 11 TOTAL 0 707 620 ]54 3 0 0 20 504 TABLE 2.3-2f (sheet 3 of 3)
| |
| ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY FOR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES FOR WNP-2 BASED ON WINDS AT 33 FT AND TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 245 AND 33 FT STABILITY UNKNOWN (TEMPERATURE CHANGE IN DEGREES F PER- 200 FT UNKNOWN)
| |
| SPEED CLASS(HPH)
| |
| C CALH ] vi3 4iv 7 8~}2 13 18 19"24 25 UP UNKNO TOTAL 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
| |
| '
| |
| --0"
| |
| ~
| |
| Q 3 } 0 0 0 0 ~
| |
| 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0" 0 -0 5-E SE n 0 0 0 0 *
| |
| : c. E 1 1 0 2 0 0 o O 0 o 2 Sec
| |
| | |
| 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
| |
| * 0 2 S5~ 0 9v 0 ~ 00 0 0
| |
| 2 0 0 1 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 3
| |
| '0 lv S ~ 0 0 1 o n o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0
| |
| '
| |
| 0 0 0
| |
| '-
| |
| h
| |
| ~
| |
| I0 Tt 0
| |
| n 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 3 0
| |
| ~
| |
| 0
| |
| ~"
| |
| 0 1
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 0 0 "~ -
| |
| 00 -
| |
| 0 7
| |
| 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I . n 0 O' 0-y'4 1 0 CALH UNK'vO 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 3 0
| |
| 0 7
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 4
| |
| -
| |
| 0 0i-".0 0
| |
| ." 0 0 "
| |
| 0 0 " 0 0
| |
| 3 0 0 214 23}
| |
| TOTAL 0 lo 26 12 6 1 0 214 269
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-3a ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION FOR WNP-2 AT 7 FT FROM 4/74 TO 3/75 SPEEO CLASS(HPH) ti3 tc!; E CALH 0 130 4 7 132 8 12 34 13"18
| |
| ' 19~24 25~UP
| |
| ~ 0 UNKNO 5
| |
| TOTAL 302
| |
| | |
| 1 95
| |
| | |
| 0 Tb 92 10 2 0 0 3 185
| |
| )(c E
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 77 64 85 59 13 8
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0 1
| |
| ~
| |
| '76 0 0 0 131 ESE 0 101 64 8 0 0 0 0 173 SE 0 175 147 29 2 0 0 SSE - 0 236 30O - 52 -=-= 3 -'-- 0 0 1
| |
| 1
| |
| - -" 5o2
| |
| '6 S 0 265 424 251 21 2 0 5 946 5cg 240 248 " 232 - " 4 -"--- 0 3 --" 795 S'~ 0 259 171 123 87 10 0 1 651 sSA 0 199 1 a3 9b 52 8 0 3 5ol IE 0 231 169 103 42 15 0 570 hlvA - lb~ " - 27 -- 3 .* 10 -.
| |
| | |
| 0 308 ~
| |
| 212 - 179 ~
| |
| 1
| |
| - ~ ~
| |
| 855 ~"
| |
| 4 tl tiNN 0
| |
| 0 566 25T 216 330 25" "" ~
| |
| 154 88 --- 66 12 '- -'
| |
| 11 1 0 ~ )~
| |
| 6 3
| |
| 954 615 163 74 459
| |
| .--v. ~- n tee >n s 5 0 0
| |
| 0 1 0 268 0 0 Usavo 0 3 0
| |
| 2 ----
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0 -" 0 0 0 0
| |
| - 254 0
| |
| 259 0
| |
| TOTAL 0 3396 3065 1442 476 78 299 8760 TABLE 2. 3-3b ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION FOR WNP-2 AT 33 FT FROM 4/74 TO 3/75 SPEEO CLASS(HPH)
| |
| CALH 1 3 4" 7 8 12 13" 18 19 24 25 UP UHKHO TOTAL H'JE 0 141 166 50 13 0 0 2 3T2
| |
| | |
| t.E 0 13t 127 32 5 2 0 300 EHE 0 1 A3 119 31 0 0 0 7 260
| |
| ---" ESEcE ~
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 98 11 3"--- 88 88 69 tot t
| |
| 20 4
| |
| 50 0
| |
| 0 6
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 1 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 2 1
| |
| 1 189
| |
| ?16--
| |
| 527 SS': 0 92 525 182 16 3 0 5 619 5 0 lab 293 315 91 8 0 8 Sc g SK h5 tl H
| |
| K al A
| |
| .. ....
| |
| n 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 ub 99 101 88
| |
| -143 241 169 tgt 229 9b 94 136 211 144'1 151 98 48 73 a3 39 26 19 b
| |
| -9 18 7
| |
| | |
| 13 7
| |
| 7 11 5
| |
| 779 515
| |
| - 428 497 812
| |
| -
| |
| | |
| ~ II 0 349 228 88 14 13 885 fibre 0 17a 3ab . 129 34 - 5 6 695 YAH C ALH
| |
| ~
| |
| g 0 0
| |
| 1 177 231 90-..-..73 0 0 9b
| |
| ". 8...-
| |
| 0 2u 1.
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0
| |
| -0 172 0
| |
| 1 529 1
| |
| U'i%'aO 0 10 38 26
| |
| * 9 - " 0 0 26u 547 TOTAL 1 2005 3332 1945 801 258 64 354 8760
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-3c (sheet 2 of 2)
| |
| ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION FOR WNP-2 AT 245 FT FROM 4/74 TO 3/75 SPEED ClAS S (MPH),
| |
| CAJUN 1-3 4 7 8 12 13 18 19" 24 2b gP UNKNO 707A1.
| |
| NNE 0 58 129 101 26 4 0 3 321
| |
| | |
| NE 0 42 15 2 5 o 253 E "E lu 0 37 59 11 2 0 1 206 0 38 35 3 0 2 175
| |
| -" ESE ~ ~ 0 59 - 1 -41 u 3 1
| |
| 0 0 -227-SE 0 68 165 91 29 8 2 367 SSE 0 58 2? 8 186, 106 13 ll 0 59$
| |
| S 0 74 321 210 '57 1 901 417 SS'>l ln9 80 883 116-0 62 174 212 236 2 0 62 133 62 55 496 HSh 0 - ~" ~ '56 V3 81 33 5 -
| |
| il 0 49 144 105 102 61 2u 8
| |
| "
| |
| 493
| |
| >( 'll 0 57 147 187 . 201 184 108 . 14 898 ha 0 64 239 295 289 132 71 1096 78 6
| |
| hhn 0 68 231 205 . 97 11 1 - 5 618 tl 4 446
| |
| --- 31.--1379 0 71 187 1 6 0 4 OAll 0 ~ *- 35
| |
| ' -:3
| |
| ~ 0 o-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UN<>lO 0 1 10 0 O 27O 290 70 7 A 1. 0 959 2580 2268 1543 688 398 324 8760
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.3-4 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, APRIL 1974 FREQUENCY OF'CCURRENCES HIND DIRECT ION VS SPEED DURING 4/74 AT WPPSS2 FOR SPEED CLASS(HPH)
| |
| CALH . ]+3 4eT 8 12 ]S ]S 19>>24 25-UP UNKNP TOTAL.
| |
| -
| |
| NNE 0 '5 S b 0 0 0, 0 19 Nt 0 2 ]5 4 0 0 0 1 22 ENE 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 -0 0 ESE SE, o
| |
| 0 6
| |
| 4 f2 4
| |
| 6 1 0 0 0 0 ll 1 0 0 0 23 SSE 0 26 21 -0 0 0 54 S ~
| |
| 0 ~ - ~
| |
| 8 - 18 - 12
| |
| ~ -o 0 T 64 SSw 0 fe 29 30 0 13 94 sw 0- 18 9 ]>
| |
| * 0 6 gb WSH 0 3 fo 12 3 1 7 41 0
| |
| '7 f4
| |
| * lb 1 S 65 HNH 0 19 26 40 21 S 2 ]25 NW 0 23 ]5 5 1 67 NNW 0 17 0 0 2 30 0- .
| |
| f 4, 1 o 0 0 23 VAR 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 7 CALN 0 ~ -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ip UNKNO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 14 TOTAL .0 69 224 174 131 45 13 64 720
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.3-5 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, MAY l974 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE> >?ND D?RECTlON VS SPEED DURl NG 5/74 AT i4PPSS2 FOR 33 F SPEED CLASS(MPH)
| |
| CALH )~3 4 ~'7 8~12 )3~)8 )9~24 25 UP UNKNO TOTAL 0 5 11 0 0 0 0 0 le NE 0 7 3- 3 0 O 0 0 13 ENE 0 1 6 2 0 0 0 0 9 E 0 8 ~ --6. 0 0 0 0 0 14 ESE 0 6 9 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 1 .)e 1 0 .
| |
| 0 0 0 18 SSE 0 9 38 13 0 0 0 0 60 S 0 10 27. 45 10 -0 0 0 92 SS'H 0 5 30 49 lb 4 2 0 lob SW 0 3 15 )8 13 3 0 0 52 wSH 0 .19 30 13 ) 0 0 69 0 3 23 35 5 0 0 79 WNW 0 11 .24 34 )7 10 0 0 96 NH 0 )4 10 )3 2 0 47 NNH 0 3 13 1 0 o 0 0 23 0 4 7 1 0 0 0 0 12 VAR 0 7 8 0 0 . .15 0 0 0 CALH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNKNn 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 93 269 248 '9b ~7 4 8 744
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.3-6 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, JUNE l974 FREQUENCY OF OCCURREt4CEp HIND D1RECT ION VS SPEED DURTNG 6/74 AT HPPSS2 FOR 33 F SPkFO CLASS(NPH)
| |
| CA) N 1 e3 . tle7 Si.12. 13i18 19~24 25~UP ONKNO TOTAL t Nk 0 ~
| |
| 5 12 1 0 0 0 0 18 .
| |
| NE .0 ...4. 0 p 0 1. 21 ENE. P 6 16 ~
| |
| 9 p p 0 31 0
| |
| E -0 3- - --14 7 . 0 0 0 0 24 ESE 0 6 0 0 0 0 26 SE 0 23 10 0 o 0 0 Ssk ll 6'0 34 0 0 0 0 2~@
| |
| S 0 -- 20 1O 0 0
| |
| 1 55 ~
| |
| SSw 0 12 -12 0 SW o
| |
| -"--- 3-"- ~ ~
| |
| 6 5 0-0 0
| |
| 51 p9 WSW 0 3 15 5 26 2 -
| |
| 18 14 13 2 ~
| |
| 1 3
| |
| 0 0 52 HNH 2 24 19 0 10 10 67 h'l4- -. ---o-.-- - 3- - - 15 20 ~- ?
| |
| 0 0 53 NNH 0 6 17 0 VAR N o.
| |
| 0
| |
| -- .-6 . -11 --.-1 - 0 0
| |
| o 0 0 0 0
| |
| 26 18 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 CAL~ ,p. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNKNO O 1O =26 9. p 0 44 TOTAL . o. el ..317 172 lo 26 8 46 720
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.3-7 MONTiiLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, JULY l974 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE< >fND DIRECTION VS SPEED DUHiHG 7/74 AT WPPSS2 FOR SS SPEED CLASS(MPH)
| |
| CALM f a3 . ..Qe7 8~12 13"18 19~24 2geUP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0 3 13 2 0 0 0 0 fR vE 0 11' -- 12- =
| |
| 1 0 0 0 $4 ENE 0 3 9 6 0 0 0 0 E 0 10 ~
| |
| 14 b 0 =-
| |
| 0 0 0 30 ESE 0 e 1 1 0 0 0 0 25 Sh -0 10 - '26 4 0 0 0 0 40 SSE 0 3 31 16 1 0 0 0 57 S -0 6 21 32 5 0 0 0 70 SSH HSH SN
| |
| '0 0
| |
| 0
| |
| ~ ~ --
| |
| 9 7--
| |
| 6 22-18 f4 .e..
| |
| 9 3
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 2 0
| |
| 0 54 50 11 0 0 f4 19 - 9 0 0 0 Vi NH 0 5 18 18 f7 5 0 0 63 0 21- 13 0 0 67 NNa 0 10 25 4 2 0 0 0 41 0 .8 22 5 0 0 0 0 35 VAR 0 24 0 ~
| |
| 0 0 0 32 CALM - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNKNO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 36 TOTAL 0 120 .327 181 12 3 36 74Q
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.3-8 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, AUGUST 1974 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRE,NCE q WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED DURING 8/74 AT WPPSS2 FOR 33 SPFED CLASS(HPN)
| |
| CALH 1~3 4s7 '1 8a]2 13i]8 ]9~24 2beUP UNKNO TOT AI NNE 0 16 11,. 0 0 0. 0 NE 0 1? 19 6 0 0 42 FNE 0 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 ]5
| |
| ~
| |
| E 0 10 4 4 O O 0 0 18 ESE 0 12 9 -0 . 0 0 0 0 21 SE" 0 6 i?5 1 O. 0 0 0 32 SSE 0 8 16 0 0 0 0 63 S 0 33 28 75 ll7 0 0 SSW 0 24 17 13 1 "0 0 .66 SW 0 8 16 8 0" 0 0 WSW 0 9 18 1 o o 0 0 28 0 ]3 6 3 0 0 0 26 WNW 0 8 19 22 ]O 1 0 73 NW 0 12 27 8 8 0 0 67 NNW 0 4 $5 10 0 o 0 0 N 0 15 32 10 0 0 0 0'' 57 VAR 0 12 5 0 0 0 18 CALH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNKNO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 ]3 TOTAI, 0 163 345 ] 44 53 c?5 1 13 744
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.3-9 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, SEPTEMBER 1974 FRE,QUENCH OF OCCURRENCE/ w'INO DIRECT lON VS SPEED DUHING 9174 AT HPPSS2 FOR 33 SPEE,D CLASS(HPH)
| |
| CALH li5 4+7 8e12 13-18 19-24 25~UP UiMKNO TOTAL NNE 0 19 29 '10 11 0 0 0 69.
| |
| i'm 0 11 5 2. 0 0 0 39 ENE 0 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 40 E 0 17 ...7 0 0 0 0 24 ESE SE 0 15 ll 1
| |
| -
| |
| ~ 0 0 0 0
| |
| 0 27 0 7 11 3 0 0 0
| |
| . 0 21 SSE 0 13 7 1 0 0 0 0 21 S 0 -,8 .....22 25 4 . 0 0 0 b9 SSH 0 5 18 11 3 0 0 58 Sq 0 .12 11 3. 3 0 0 29 WS rf 0 8 3 1 0 0 0 17 0 .12 10 - -10 4 0 0 0 36 WNW 0 9 12 17 12 5 1 0 56 0 24 8 1 0 65 NVw 0 12 29 N
| |
| 3 0 1 0 59 0 15 28 12 0 0 0. 93 YAR 0 10 8 0 0 1 0 0 19 GALS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VNKNO 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 TOTAL 2l)0 274 0'3 0 162 10 8 720
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.3-10 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, OCTOBER l974 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED DURING 10/74 AT WPPSS2 FUR 33 F SPEED CLASS (HPH)
| |
| GALS 1 3 4e7 8~12 1 18 19r24 25iUP uNKNO TOT AL NNE 0 i?6 15 1 0 0 0 0 42 NE 0- 26 17 0 0 0 0 0 43 ENE ,0 26 22 1 0 0 0 0 49 E 0- 20 0. ~
| |
| 0 0 0 0 24.
| |
| ESE 0 15- 0 0 0 0 0 17 SE 0 15 19 i? 0= 0 0 0 36 SSE 0 16 21 8 0 0 0 0 45 S 0 13 25 13 0 0 0 0 SSW 0 15 2'1 0 0 0 0 42 SW 0 12 13- -.1- 0 0 0 0 26 WSW 0
| |
| '5 11" 2 0 0 0 0 28 0 12 10 5 0 0 37 WNW 0 21 11 15 ll 6 0 0 64 NW 0 17 17 12 7 0 0 0 53 NNW 0 29 2o 9 2 0 0 0 60 N 0 37 24 3 0 0 0 0 64 VAR 0 16 4- 0 0 0 0 0 20 CALN 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l UNKNO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 42 TOTAL 331 255 = 83 25 7 0 42 44
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.3-11 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS'OR WNP-'2','OVEMBER 1974 FREQUENCY OF'CCURRKNCKg HIND DIRAC T? ON VS SPEED DUR?NG ff/74 AT wPPSS2 FOR 33 F SPEFD CLASS (HPH)
| |
| CALH fo3 . ~ 4~2 - 8~ }2 }3~}8 }9e24 25 UP UNKNO To TAL NNE, 0 18 f4 4 0 .0 0 2 38 NK 0 10 0 0 0 1 2e KNE. 0 13 10 7 0 0 0 31 E 0 - .6-- =-= 0 0 0 0 0 1
| |
| ESE. 0 12 5 0 0 0 0 0 15 S.E 0 }=3 7 0 0 0 0 SSE 0 7 28 15 3 0 0 0 53 S ~
| |
| 0 12 29. 5 0 0 0 75 SSW 0 11 19 0 0 71 Sw 0 --'12 20- 8 - -4 0 0 50 wSW 0 9 6 2 2 0 0 24 .
| |
| W 0 12 f4 3 1 2 0 3 35 WNW 0 22 7 5 1 0 2 51 N'W 0 27 ~ ~ ~-
| |
| 0 75 1
| |
| NNW 0 24 34 0 0 0 eo N 0 ~
| |
| --30 7- 3 0 0 0 50 VAR 0 11 0 0 0 0 13 CALH 0 0 ~ - 0 0 0 ~
| |
| 0 0 0 UNKNO TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5-0 250 - 285 . 1.16. 43 1} 0 15 720
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.3-12 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, DECEMBER 1974 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE WIN"'?RECT?ON VS SPEED DUR1NG 12/T4 AT WPPSS2 FOR 33 SPEED CLASS (MPH)
| |
| CALM fe3 4e7 8~12' 18 19~24 25-UP UNhNO TOTAL 0 12 2 0 0 0 0 17 NE 0 ~ - ~
| |
| 9 5 -2 0 0 0 0 fe ENE 0 0 n 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 Esk 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 10 Sh 0 -9 6 5 1 0 0 0 21 SSE 0 5 26 3 1 0 0 60 S 0 11 39 35 1 0 0 100 SSW 0 14 23 29 9 0 e2 SH 0 f4 11 9 2 0 0 0 36 WSW 0 16 17 S 2 1 0 4'b 0 20 15 7 S 3 0 52 WNW 0 27 2'5 21 6 1 1 0 81 NW 0- 17 59 11 3 0 0 1 91 NNW 0 29 27 0 0 0 0 o2 N 0 ~
| |
| 21 12 0 1 0 0 0 34 VAR 0 8 3 1 0 0 0 0 12 CALN 0 0 -0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 UNKNO 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 9 9 TOTaL 0 231 277 160 ub 12 10 744
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.3-13 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, JANUARY 1975 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCES >IND DIRECT?ON VS SPEED DURING }/7b AT 'wPPSS2 FUR 33 F SPEED CLASS(HPH)
| |
| CAL." --1 3 =-.4 7----8 12.--13 1-8--19 24-. 25 UP UNKNO TOTaL NNE NE 0 il . 17 . 6
| |
| ---13 ----1"1-------4-"-. --=..-0-"- ---0--.- --
| |
| O o 0 0 34 0 0 28 ENE 0 10 }2 5 0 0 33 E 0- -- --}0-------1. -- 0 .
| |
| 0
| |
| - -. 0 6
| |
| 2 18 ESE 0 15 -
| |
| 5 2 0 0 0 1 23 SE -'-.0 }4------ }4 } - --- 0 ----- . } =- - 0 lory 1 27 SSE 0 13 17 15 2 1 0 0 S 0= =- 10 -- }4- ---- 16" - - --6 --- .0 0 0 46 SSw O 6 18 }O 15 3 O 0 52 SH 0- - }5 - 14- - 5 -- -- --.4 2 1 48 HSW 0 }3 }6 4 3 6 3 0 0 - ~
| |
| 8 -- - 8-- -- - -- 4- ~ 0--- ~
| |
| 0 .0 28 HNH 0 23 14 13 0 . 0 0 51 Ne NN>
| |
| 0 20 .37- '---19 = - .3- -- . 0 1
| |
| 89 O 29 47 22 O O 0 102 O - 11 17----15 0 .. O 0 1 44 VAR CALM
| |
| . 0
| |
| --- -0 ~
| |
| 7
| |
| -
| |
| 3 1 0- ---0 o -
| |
| 0 o o 0 l}
| |
| . ~
| |
| 0 0 0 UNKNO 0 0 0 0 0 }7 0 0 17 TOTAL -0 219-- ---274- -- 1.47-'-- -4.0- ----1.5 - - 5 44 744
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.3-14 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, FEBRUARY 1975 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCES WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED DURING 2/75 AT WPPSS2 33 F SPEED CLASS(HPH)
| |
| --- -CALH-- }<<3 - -4<<7- 8-12 13<<18 - -19<<24 25<<UP UNKNP TOTAL NNE 0 15 15 2 0 0 0 0 32
| |
| -NE =-
| |
| -0 -=-. 8 0 0 0 0 .0 16 ENE 0 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 }3 E- -0 - 4 2. ~
| |
| 0 0 .0 0 0 e ESE 0
| |
| --- --0--- - 5
| |
| .e - --10 5 1 0 l.
| |
| 0 0 0 il SE 3 0 0 0 20 SSE 0 14 20 13 1 0 0 52 S ~ -- - ~
| |
| 14 =il 18 2 0 0 53 SSW 0 9 8 10 18 1 0 55 SW- -- - - -0 .
| |
| 9 3 4 4 0 33 WSW 0 9 7 7 0 3}
| |
| .W 0 - 4 11 b 1- 1 0 24
| |
| 'HNW 0 7 14 9 2 2 1 0 35 NW. 0 ~
| |
| 12 54 45 10. 3 2 0 126-NNW 0 14 45 24 14 0 0 97 H- .0 }e 19 19 -1 0 0 '55 VAR 0 5 2 1 0 0 0 8 CALN 0 0 0 ~
| |
| 0 0 0 0 UNKNO 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 TOTAL ~ 0 ~
| |
| 151 248. .}57 ee 35 10 5 b72
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.3-15 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP 2 I MARCH 1 9 7 5 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE g WIND DIRECTION VS SPEKD DURING 3i75 AT SPPSS2 FOR 33 f SPEED ClASS (HPH)
| |
| CAlM 1i3 ---4r7-- " 8r 1 2" "-1 3r f 8 f'9+24 25'P:- UNK NO TOTAl NNK 6 8 5 2 NE 0
| |
| 0." . -5 " -f' 0
| |
| ' 0 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 2f'0' ENE 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 E
| |
| ,
| |
| 0-. 6 -i? 0 0 0
| |
| "
| |
| 0 10 ESE SE 0
| |
| 0' 9 5 6 '-'7 1 0 3
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 15 18 SSK 0 5 24 22 3 54 0
| |
| " 3
| |
| -" -- 28 "-35 13 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 79 le S'SW SW -
| |
| 0 0
| |
| -- ---5 1 15 9 "
| |
| 24 f4 31
| |
| - 14 6
| |
| ' 0 0 0
| |
| 62 73 WSW 0. 4 7 12 8
| |
| -'' 6
| |
| .0 0 0 3?
| |
| 0 0 -1 0 16 0 6 21 19 . 2 0 4 0 52 NW 0' f3- - 32-- --27--- --"- 6-- 4 0 83 NNW 0 9 37 23 f2 5 0 0 86 0 .
| |
| 11 '"18" .
| |
| 6'- - 9 0 0
| |
| '
| |
| -
| |
| 0 VAR 0 7 0 0 0 0 12 CALH" 0 --- --0 - - 0- -0 ' 0 0
| |
| '0 UNKNO TOTAl 0
| |
| 0 - 97 0
| |
| -
| |
| 237 - *
| |
| -201-0 105'3 0 0 0 8
| |
| 63 ej 63 744
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.3-16a SEASONAL PERCENT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED AND WIND DIRECTION AT HMS VS. ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY USING TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 3 AND 200 FOOT LEVELS AND WINDS AT 200 FEET FOR THE PERIOD 1955-1970 (Winds eeds are in MPH in the left column.)
| |
| ~g~ ~ S~P ~G NNE NE EtlE E ESE SE SSE S SSW WNK )IW N VAR OALt'OTAI.
| |
| ~~
| |
| SW WSW W NNW 0 - 3 ys 0 15 VS t'.S 0
| |
| ~08 0.13 o,n9 0.14 o.21 0,23 0
| |
| ~
| |
| 11 oen8 0
| |
| ~
| |
| 10 0
| |
| ~ 0~ 16 o,i3 17 Oe20 0 07 e
| |
| 0 08 0.14 o.21 o.15 O.38 0
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ 08 0
| |
| ~
| |
| 08 0
| |
| ~
| |
| 07 0
| |
| ~
| |
| 14
| |
| ~2t 0
| |
| n'09 0.31 0
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ 10
| |
| ~ 2714 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| oe12 22 n n
| |
| 14 08 n.23 h
| |
| ~
| |
| 08 3 ) 55 1,86 to 0,10 0)20 0 11 0,14 0,20 0 19 0 07 0 07 0,06 0 07 Q 03 0,12 0 06 0.13 0,18 0,22 n 15 h 07 2;1" U o,si'oI70 oi39 o,46 o.a9 o 31 o,ia o ao 0.16 o.14 O.ii oIi4"o,i7 o.3o o,36"0,67 n.so n.oi "5.56 VS Oe15 0e13 Oeia 0 ~ 15 0 18 0 30 Oe20 Oe24'O.ao O.35 O.sa O,93 6,99"0,9a" Oj58 Oe34 n,ni h, "6',25 tIS 08 0 12 Oeio 0,16 0,18 0,33 0~16 0 18 0.15 0,19 0.-27 0 44 0,37 0.37 0~23 0 22 OL01 h, 3,57 to U
| |
| 0 0 e leoo Ooo 0 in oan~o,Xo o.ee
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 ~ 03 0)69 0.61 0.52 o-ee o,i~o,ia o n7 o.ooo 'o.in 0 71 oo,iT 0,46 0,60 0.56 0.65 0.38 0,40 0,58 1.28 1.19 1,?7 n.23 n.
| |
| i o,i~o. o,ie o io n,oe n, ~oF 12.1~
| |
| 8 -12 VS 0 11 0 15 Oe14 0 10 0 08 0 13 0 22 0 14 0 14 0 24 0;61 1 29 2 06 1 54 0)51
| |
| ~ ~ 0 ?2 n. n. 7,67.
| |
| tl$ 0 11 0 10 0 04'0;0'6 0 ~ 07 0,20"0,21 0" 15 lt;28 0,37 .0;58 1,13 1;45 0;98 0';25 lJ 14 0, n 6,1'0 tn OI07 0 04 Oeh5 0 05 0,06 0 10 0 10 0 06 0.09 0 14 0 18 0 18 0 31 0.39 0 10 0 08 n n, 1 98 1318 VS tone 006 0.04 Oen4 0,04 0,00 005 017 0,03 O.OQ 0.0i 034 05O 120 0,09 0,07 0,02 0,03 0 02 0) 09 0,16 0,12 0,26 0,58 1;12 1,75 3 43 1.89 0)14 0')12 0 i 34 O i5 01i 0, n, Il, -
| |
| 4 9 84 i6 t O,O9 O,O2 Oeni O'.Oi O.Oi"0,05"0,05 O,OS "0.1O',20"0.20',ai O,'39 O.38" 0,04 O,'O4"n, h; "i,95.
| |
| n .. !
| |
| 19 24 VS Oe 0 ~ Oo Oooo 0 ~ 01 0 ~ 0 Oi 0)02 Oi01 0
| |
| ~ ~ 0 Oi 0 04 oeoa 0 06 0 20 OI01 0
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ no 0 38
| |
| ~
| |
| Ils 05 Oeo2 Oenl ojoi 0,00 0,04 Oe08 Oe07 Oo18 Oo51 Oo72 Oe45 le99 1.36 0,03 Oj02 5e52 to 0
| |
| 0 i 02 0 F 02 Oeni 0 0 0 01 0 F 02 Oe07 0 '10 0 '9 0 20 0 '8 0 30 0 35 0 Oi 0 01 ne 0
| |
| ne nn." 1 41
| |
| '2
| |
| ~ ~ F F U 0 0 06 Olnl 0 01 0 ~ Oe O~o01 Oe04 026 063 072 Oe21 052 075 002 004 n.:- 340 OVER 24 VS Oi 0 0 l 0 0 ~ 0 Oe 0 0 0 00 0 ~ 01 Oe 0 ~ 00 0 ~ 0 ~ Oe 0 Oe Oool 0)oeol
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| 2'?.
| |
| ~
| |
| I' Oe010)010)0 ~
| |
| 0 ~ oi05 0 ~ 190e45 O;26 O,O6 O,75 O,84 O.'i4 'O,O3 o,'24-0.'2',-
| |
| Oe O,Oi n; ne .e---
| |
| iona
| |
| ~
| |
| to oeoi Oooo 0)00 Oooo Oo Oo Oeol Oe01 0.07 Oe24 0 o". n, .
| |
| .....U 0 02.k 03,0ln.a.o ..Q;...Oi.....0 .....Q).Q2. Q. $ 7..0, 84 .Q i 59 .Q).i"..O.e.33..0 56..0i.oi .Q.i 01.n.e hi 2 ~ 73 JTTTQAQ Q$ gg47 Og46 Oe39 Q 44 0 47 Q)72 ~76 Og54 0 5Q +89~.6)~3~24 58 4 ~ 32 ~47~088 h+5 h 23 22 03 0,42 42 0)25 0,36 0,45 0 85 0,69 0 67 1,15 2,17 3,02 3,97 8,09 5.54 0)79 0 62 0,09 n,08 29,61 AS N Oe35 0
| |
| 0 '8 Oe24 0 '3 0 F 39 Oe61 Oe37 Oe40,0 48 Oo91 0 '5 '5 0 i)48 1 72 0)48 Oe45 Og17 ne07 10 F 54.
| |
| U 2 62 2 46 i)35 1 23 0 93 1 32 0,90 1 23 2.07 3 89 3.52 1 74 3 25 5;58 2,25 2 76 0,74 h 01 37 83
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.4-l6b gEA.SQL ~ SUNDER ..
| |
| .....NNE...NK EHE ...X...ESF- .. SE ..SSE . S .. SStI SK . MSK K . KNX .."IM..NNK.. N VAR e CALt'OTAL IIS 0 05 0.04 O)O4 0 05 0 08 0)12 0,04 0 07 0 04 0 05 0 06 0 12 0,09 0 11 0,04 0 07 0 06 0 05 1 16
| |
| ...........I'. O,1O 0.1O..O)09.0.12..0.10. 0 .15 O,O7 O,O6 .O.O7 O,O6 O,OS.O O7. O,O7 O 11 D 10 F
| |
| 15 0,10- h 05 1,64 U 0,42 0,65 0)78 0 37 0,36 0 37 0,18 0 31 0,16 0 32 0,21 0 24 0,1S 0.35 0,37
| |
| ~ 0 0 57 0,93-h ~ 02 ',28
| |
| ~~o~o 7 vs N
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 14 09 0
| |
| 0 07 13 0)10
| |
| ~enS 0
| |
| 0 a
| |
| 0
| |
| ~~
| |
| 13 08 0
| |
| 0
| |
| ~ 12 16 0
| |
| ..own 0
| |
| 21 0,14 mor 21 0,08 0
| |
| o.
| |
| 0 11 0.13 0,18 a~az'n..xr.n.a.a 09 0.07 0 10 0
| |
| 0 35 0,78 0,81 0.51 09
| |
| .o..
| |
| 0 e.o 17
| |
| .oar16 0
| |
| 0,3s 0,21 0,01 n,
| |
| ,oa.a.,o.a.a .o,ns o.aa. e.
| |
| 0.22 0 15 Oo'2 0 03 h 4,4<
| |
| a,an 1
| |
| ... U .ia58. 1 ~ 55 0t88. 1 ~ 08,0 89
| |
| ~ 1 ~ 16 0 ~ 76 0 a 98 0 ~ 92 1 ~ 11 0 ~ 84 0 ~ 88 0o85 1 ~ 66 1 ~ 47 1 ~ 79 0 ~ S7 h ~ 19 ~ 27 S .12... VS Ot14 Ot16 0)09 Qa09 0 ~ 11 Q)08 Qti6 0)Q9 0 ~ 06 0 ~ 13 0 ~ 49 1)18 2t04 1 ~ 28 0 ~ 44 0 ~ 18 n ~
| |
| * n ~ 6,71
| |
| ~~m..an~a..a~os.
| |
| U 0
| |
| on78 09 0 0 ~
| |
| 10 54 0
| |
| 0 03 0 09 0 11 0 12 0 10 0 05 0 06 0 19 0 48 1 25 1 49 0 ~ 63 0 13 0 12
| |
| ~ 20 a ae e ne a.oa..o a~,oo. a,as n.anw.zo.
| |
| 0 ~ 18 ooi8 0 ~ 23 0 ~ 15 0 ~ 22 0 ~ 53 1 ~ 21 1 06 0 ~ 62 0 ~ 99 1 95 0 ~ 66 Oo66 n~w as...o os
| |
| "
| |
| a..
| |
| Oeoi 0
| |
| a.
| |
| h,
| |
| ~
| |
| .
| |
| 5o04 1o46 10,17 13-18 VS Oe04 '4 n2 03 '2 02 11 '0 36 1.44 15 03 3,65
| |
| '302 '50803 Oe01 01 0 0 0 1 0 0
| |
| ...HS On06 N 0 02 0
| |
| 0
| |
| '502 ~
| |
| 0)04 Oahl 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| F
| |
| ~
| |
| 0 ~
| |
| 04,0)04 01 0,00 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| .0 0
| |
| F Oa03 0 03 0 ~
| |
| : 0. ~ 07 0,03 0,10 0
| |
| 0 F
| |
| ~ 18 0
| |
| 0 '2
| |
| ~
| |
| 0.29 0
| |
| 1)47.4o79 0 24 0,44
| |
| ~
| |
| 0.36 0,02 0 ~
| |
| 2 ~ 03. Oe13 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ 05 02 0
| |
| n,
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ 0 n
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ 9,64 1o64 Jl~ ~g o 0.6~QMg og O~s~.lL) 0.,03 0~~87~o4 0 37 QM2~ 0.9 Q&O 0 m 0 n 6~02.
| |
| i'tI 34.. YS Oo I' 0)02 Qe01. Oeoo, 0 ~ 03 0 ~ 02 Oa...oe 0 ~ 01 0 ~
| |
| 0) 00 0 ~ 00 0)..
| |
| 0)01
| |
| .Oa 0 ~
| |
| .
| |
| 02 O.n 0 ~
| |
| ...Oo .Oo.oi.o,a ...Oo03. 0..22..0 F 00 03 0 ~ 09 0 ~ 18 0 ~ 29 2 ~ 77 2 ~ 70 0 ~ 02 Oa... t'e Oe01',
| |
| ".. na n,
| |
| . 0.27 6, 1at N O.eoi 0. 03..0t.pi. 0>.ok .Oa....Q>.. Qa.....o .OZ.oeo?..Q. 16 .0. ~ ,07.0)51..0 '8..0 ~ oi O,Oo.n, n.. io47 U
| |
| F Oj05 0 F 07 0)01 0 F 01 O.a.
| |
| 0 ~ 0 ~ Oe02 Ot02 0 07 0 F '7 '5 '5 '8 0 0 0 1 27 0 '2 0,01 n, n, 2,84 OVER 24 VS oe Oooo 0) Oe Oe Oe Oe Oe 0. 0>> Oo Oe Oeoo 0. 0, Oe n, n, o,oe PS, 0 a.oo. 0, ~ 0.1 0 t . Qf 0 e.....o.a.o.p..o).00 .0 t 00..0 aoi. 0 03 ~ .0 ~ 03. 0~ 02. 1 a02 1 ~ 63..0i.oo. 0 ~ 0, n, 2e77 N 0 ~ 00 0 ~ 01 ot 0 ~ oe 0 ~ 0)01 0 Oi 0 01 0 03
| |
| ~ ~ ~ Oo08 Ooo'2 0 49 0 ~ 79 Otoo 0 ~ 0, n, 1,44 e,.
| |
| ~
| |
| 0~ 0 a03 0 t 01..0).....0w....o 0 a 0).. 0,03.0 ai5 0 i240 07,0 a26...1 ~ 02..0 ~ 01.
| |
| ~ 0 ~ O, n, 1,'Sn HS 0 30 0 31 Oti'9 0 ~ 27 0 37 0 46 0 27 0 27 0,27 0 70 1 58 3 5410 44 7 ~ 33 0,46 0 30 0 ~ Q7 h 05 27,iat I) D. 29...0. 25 Q>2Ã.O 25. k 32.J) 44..0,23.0. 21 0. 23,A 43. Q..S5..0 76.i 96 2 35 0,33 0 31 0 12.0 05. 9 .62 U 3,08 3 00 1 45 1 ~ 67 1 45 1 81 1,15 1 57 1,SS 3 94 3 83 2,32 3 ~ 73 7 ~ 93 2,63 3 17 1 ~ 81 n ~ 02 46 ~ 42
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2. 3-16c (sheet 3 of 5)
| |
| ....SEASON ~. FAI.L..
| |
| NNE IIE ENE E ESE SE SSW. SH WSH HNH NH NNH N VAR, rALte TOTAL YS..P. 31. Q 31 Oi25 P 32. 0.43 0 Oj...o 34 9 35 Oo32 Oo31 Oo 31 a.55 0,54 .O.66 P,63 O,52 0,3O 0.87 7'. 91 rs 0 20 0 21 0 19 0 ~ 27 0 38 0 54 0 23 0 20 0.12 0e12 Qo18 0,17 o,23 0.37 0,29 0,39 n,15 n,6o 4,84 N pe37 0 ~ 43 Oe38 0 ~ 41 0 ~ 40 0 ~ 51 Qe21 Oei6 0 o 15 0,11 0,08 0,13 o,16 0.35 o,46 0,37 0,16 n,39 5,24 U 0 71 0 97 0 57 0 63 0 ~ 48 0 31 0 14 Oeil Oo06 Oof3 Oop9 0 11 0 15 0 31 O,53 0,7O 0,36 n,08
| |
| ~ 6,4?
| |
| 7 VS 0 28 0 23 Oei7 0 18 Oo28 Oe50 Oe47 Oe43 0,38 oo49 0 '7 1 20
| |
| ~ ie53 1 48 0 92 pe49 " 02 n,
| |
| ~ ~ ~ 9,73 HS Oe19 Oei2 Oaf6 Ooi5 Oe27 Oe44 Oe29 Ooil Oo19 pe20 Ooi9 0,33 O,51 0,70 O,47 0,32 O,O1 Oe 4,71 N 0,13 0 13 Oen6 0 12 0,25 Q)31 0,13 Oe09 0,07 0,08 0,08 0 1.3
| |
| ~ 0,21 0 ~ 54 0,36 0 15 O,pi n, 2,85 p,88 0,74 0,46 0,48 O.6O O 52 Oe23 Oe 18 o.25 O,24 Oo21 O,17 O.36 O.94 1.?3 1,22 neOS n, 8,81 8 12 VS 0e17 0 ~ 08 0 ~ n6 0 ~ 06 Oo04 Oe17 Oe31 0 11 Oo13 Qo32 0 68 ie50 2,49 2.37 0,77 0,27
| |
| ~ ~ n, n, 9,55 rS Oelp 0 05 nen3 03 0 ~ 10 0 ~ 23 oe27 Oe16 Oo22 O.43 Oo48 Oe76 1,26 1.45 0,41 0 13 ne 6oln h Qe05 0 '5
| |
| ~
| |
| Oo26 nen5 nenf 0 ~
| |
| Qe03 0,03 Qe09 Oo03 Oo05 pelf Oe08 Oe07 po05 Oe07 Oe15 0)11 0,23 0,60 Qef7 0,06 Oe04 Oepp O.17 Q,28 0,35 Oe20 0 32 1.11 0 56 0,44 n', n, 1,85 4,5n U Oe45 n,pp n, 13 18 VS 0 F 06 0 F 03 0 ~ ni 0 ~ 02 popo Oe05 Oelp Oe03 Oo02 Oeop O.25 0e43 1 ~ 54 1 ~ 93 0 ~ 21 O,O4 n, n. 4,7o rs o,o9 o.o5 o no o.o2 O.O1 O.O9 Oe15 Po18 Oo31 Oe63 0 F 87 Oe97 2e18 1.85 Oe17 Oef2 ne Oe 7.7n I O,O4 O.Q2 O,nO O,OO Oe04 0,04 0,07 0,09 0,14 0,21 Oeii 0,26 0.37 0,09 O,O5 n; n, 1,55 LI p,g5 Q,g2 ofgi 0, 0 ~ Peo3 Qap3 Oa03 Oelp O 34 Oe45 pe 1 pe42 0.63 Qep9 Qe13.0e n, 2,78 19-24 vs o, oo oeno o. Oe 01 Oe Ol Oopi 0 01 Oo04 Oe 03 Oe09 0.19 Po o,oo p,38 rS 0 05~
| |
| 0 0
| |
| Oepo 0 ~ ol F 03 0 '3 O)ni 0 ~
| |
| Pe . Oe popo Oeol Oe05 OeiS 0.?7 Oe57 0 F
| |
| '4 oe02 Oe02 Oe04 0,10 Oe19 0,?0 0,02 0,13 Oo24 Oo99 1.04 Pe03 0 02 0.23 0,01 0,02 n
| |
| n n, 4o04 h 0 ~ 0, n, 1,On U O,O4 O,O3 O,ni O. 0 ~ Oe Oeoi Oepl O.O7 Oe32 0,34 peon O,23 O.37 O.O1 Oe02 tIe. n, 1,55 OVER 24 VS Oe 0 ~ . Pe 0 ~ Oo Oe Oe Oeol pool Oe Oooo Oe Oe 0. Oe 0, n, n, 0.02 NS Oe Oeoi Ot Oe Oo Oe Oe02 poop Oo30 Oe43 0 21 Oe07 Oe31 0.40 0,01 Oe
| |
| ~ ne n, f,84 N Oeol pool 0 ~ no 0 ~ 0, Oe Oeol Oe02 0,09 Oe19 0,09 Oe03 Oe07 0 13 oooo 0,00 n, n, 0,66 V 0epi 0 ~ 05 O ~ ni 0 ~ Oo Oe Oe Oepi Oo09 O.39 0.24 Oe07 ne09 0.21 Oepl Oe 0; n, f fn e
| |
| .TGTALS..VS 83 Qe66 0!4'I Qe58 e 76 .1) 32 .le 22 Q)94 Qo97 ie21 ie95 3,70 6,f8 6,63 2,52 ie32 n,32 n,87 32e38 IIS 0
| |
| 0
| |
| ~
| |
| 63 0 ~ 46 0 '0 0 ~ 46 0
| |
| 0.76 1 32 1 02 Oe98 lo40 2o38 2.48 2 53 5 49 5.82 1 37 0 ~7 n,f6 n,60 29 24 h
| |
| U
| |
| ~
| |
| Oe60 0 2,34 2.17
| |
| '4 ne47 1
| |
| ~
| |
| oe56 0,68 0,96 0,49 0,46 0,56 Oo78 0,82 0,54 1,08 2.23 1,09 0,65 fo l.f4 1.13 0,97 o,45 O,42 0,75 1 71 1 69 0,77 1,57 3.56 2,43 2,5p
| |
| ~
| |
| n,f6 n,39 13ei6 n,44 n,p8 25,23
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.3-16d sheet 4 of 5)
| |
| SEASON WINTER NNE ESE E ESE sE ssE s ssM SV NSv vNM NH NNW VARI CALM TOTAL 0493 Vs 0 29 0035 Oo>3 0030 003d Oe58 0 39 0037 0 ~ 27 0 30 003 084$ 0 4 006 ~050 Oe54 0 35 0973 7 36 NS Oi38 0036 ao34 0042 0 ~ 6 00 0 62 0 ~ 64 OI51 at 0
| |
| ~
| |
| ao4 0 39 00'24
| |
| ~
| |
| 0 66 0 0~ 74 0 91 Of0 55 0 32 0 23
| |
| ~ 0~ 4~
| |
| 0
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ 24 0 '0 oe 22 Oi21.
| |
| 0 ~ e 0040 004 0 ~ 6 OI64 0 ~ 9 0 0~ 39 0 f 45 0075 0 0 I 89 0091 0 1 0 '
| |
| 0 f 14 1 ~ 30 1 ~ 42 10 0
| |
| J 43 U Oif30 0 25 OI20 0 ~ 15 0 12 0 07 0003 Oit05 0 04 0 03 0 01 0 06 0 08 0 14 0 22 0 23 0 OS n,ob 2.oS 4+7 VS 0029 0021 Ooid 0 21 0 22 0 MS 0,30 OI36 0 ~ 25 0 36 0,48 0 ~ 93 0,99 i.iO 0 92 0 53 0,06 0 f,7h HS 0 33 0 029 0222 D.21 0.26 D 47 0 31 D 23 0.20 0 27 D;27 0,53
| |
| ~ 0 84 1 ~ 42 1400 0,65 O,D3 II. 7,62 0020 Oe21 0010 0 16 0 23 0 2 0023 0009 0 07 0 14 0 16 0 23 0 53 1 23 DI66 0 34 0 00 II 4 93 U at31 0 f25 0 16 0 12 0,10 0 09 of 04 0,03 0,05 OJ02 0.02 0 OS of12 0.64 0 55 0,41 Ofai 00 .2,96 8 4912 VS Oe09 0005 0 io3 0003 0005 0013 0015 0012
| |
| ~ 0 0 0 ~ 13 0029 0059 0095 1041
| |
| ~ ~ ~ 0 1 4 79 0070 0015 0 J
| |
| ~ ~ 0 0 0~
| |
| 6'67
| |
| 'I'S 15 07 0 03 06 11 30 19 13 0.25 0,36 of45 0,69 1,67 3 10 0,72 0 18 0,00 8,45 o~i, O,l~~,'3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 N
| |
| U 0
| |
| 0, 07 0 i4O,H 06 0003 tI 0 0 0 03 0 09 0 od 0 FD.
| |
| 0.05 0 07 0 08 0 10 OI86
| |
| ~3 a. f4 O,Y5 ~0 A~. ~,291 87 0 28 0 09 0 O; f4 0 3 78 13 18 VS NS N
| |
| 0,05 0 03 of 0015 0005 Oooi Oeoi 0
| |
| 0 00 0 07 0 01 OIII0 0 01 0.01 0 02 0 13 0 03 0~00 0 00 0.
| |
| 0 0 0 t 05 0008 0,
| |
| 0+ 0004 0J 0
| |
| 0 0005 0 09 0 19 0 31 16 0026 0036 0 0078 0
| |
| oz oi03 0 ~ of 0 14 0 15 DO D 01 0 08 0 10 0 2D 0088 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 51 t 76 0,89 1 I 73 1 ~
| |
| 3916 9
| |
| 41 0 I, 0,17 11 0 26 0 44 0 06 0 08 0 03 29 Oe12 08 of67 1 ~ 2i 0>08 0 06 I
| |
| 0 0f 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 00 0
| |
| II 3f81 8
| |
| 2I62 1 51 85 19 24 VS 0.f. oi 0 01 Oi02 0 01 0.04 07 05 0 J 08 0.12 00 a. O', O,45
| |
| '.
| |
| 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0% 0 no 9 Oo04 03 oo 01 0 03 0 10 0 18 0 36 96 56 35 0,44 0 ~ 70 05 3',85
| |
| '1 0 '2 0 HS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS O3 Po 0 ~
| |
| N 0 t 03 0 Oo 0 F 00 0 F 01 00 OJ01 0003 0009 0 ~ 14 ~ 03 OJ07 0418 oiai OIO6 O n ~ O 74 U 0,03 o,o4 o,ni o, 9;oO o,'oo o,oi o.o'4 o,iS 0',i4 o,o3 o,od o,i4"0;oo 0003 0 ~ 0 ~ 0067 OVER 24 VS 00 OI Oe 0,02 O,QO..OI...Q,...,. 9,,
| |
| Oo a,oo o,ai a,oi 0,04 o,o4 o.oi 0001 00 09 0,92 0,06 0,21 O,69.0.,9.9. 0,.41, 0,11. 0212,0213 .Qgoi. 0.092 P.I.
| |
| af O, 0, 00 0 '2
| |
| ..2.i74 Oi N 0 ~ 03 0 ~ 02 OI 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 01 0003 0014 0 23 Oi05 0 02 Oeal 0.02 00
| |
| ~ ~ ~ 0003 00 00 0,61 204 OQO Oo 0 ~ 0~ 0, 0, 0201 0~0+ 020 0216 0 02 0801 0'04 oj00 O Oi . 0
| |
| ~ ~ 0 n 2 O'57 7~~~~72~~03 0~4$ ~5~~6 ~073 0~9~2~9~0~0~26 1 ~7~~22 3 7 05,g3 2'43/ 3~25 0~4~073 6~7 YS 1 07 0 81 0 g5'5t 0 70 1 12 1 1 30 1 39 2 ~ 10 3.61 2,77 2 85 5 26 9,17 2,77 1 59 0 26 1 30.40,34
| |
| ..tg...1 f02 0096 OI72 ~ 83 1001 1 ~ 30 QI87 0 ~ 52 0066 Q093 0 0 ~ 77 0 ~ 85 2f60 5 26 1g93 1049 of 14 1042 23I24 U 0,95 0 d6 0,41 0,29 0.23*0,18 0,08 0,13 0,36 0 53 0,64 0 34 0 so 2 ~ 46 1,i3 0 91 0,06 0 Od i0,20
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.3-16e (sheet 5 of 5)
| |
| ANNUAL
| |
| " ESE SE 'SE 'S SSK SK KSX K KNK NX NhX N VARe CALH TOTAL NNE NE ENE E 0 ~ 3 VS 0..21 0.21 Oe15 Oe20 0-26 0.38 0.23 0.23 0 20 Oe23 0.22 Oe40 0.34 0.43 0 ~ 37 Oe35 0 ~ 21 Oo48 5e11 N0.3003402" "u"'6.49''64" 0330360440220150130110.100180180.330410410.130484,87 0'6 0 40 0:31 0;27 0"1'2 O'J7 6'10 0 "16 b.16 0'4 O.ia''.27 6"'37 0 54 0'46 0'04 "5 0<
| |
| C---X "vs o.21-O.ie'o.isa o,.i7'0 20 0'33 0 2F b.;Ze'6:24 6,35 tj..56 0''6 f ..Oe. i.ioo f.69 0 39 b 02 O.
| |
| ~ ~ ~ l.02-PS 0,17 0.15 0,13 0,15 0.22 0,36 0,21 0,17 0.15 0,21 0,24 0,42 0.50 0,68 0,47 0,31 0,02 0. 4,56 U 0 94 0 ~ 90 0 ~ 55 0 ~ 58 0'53 0 ~ 62 0 ~ 37 0 ~ 45 0'45 0 ~ 51 0 ~ 37 0 ~ 38 0 ~ 48 1 ~ 13 1 11 1 ~ 98 0 ~ 30 0 ~ 10 ~ 84 8 12 VS 0 13 0 11 0 08 0 ~ 07 0 Q7 0
| |
| ~ 13 0 21 0 11 0 12 Op24 Qe59. 1 ~ 23 2 ~ 00 1 74 ~ 0 60 0 20 0 0 7 ~ 65 NS 0;11
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 0,08 0,03 0;06 '0:10';21 ~ ~
| |
| 0';19"0,13
| |
| ~
| |
| 0 ~ 20 0,34 0';50 O;96';47'.'53 ~ ~
| |
| 0,38 0;14 0;00 0,
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| "6;43 N 0.06 0.04 Oe03 Oe03 0 04 Oe09 Oo07 Oo04 0.06 Oe09 0.14 Oe14 0 ~ 42 0.78 0.1 Ge06 0. Oo 2e2"
| |
| """A'b0.105 u
| |
| ~ 0 'i 0,05 0,02 0,02 0.02 0,07 0,13 0,15 0.25 0,54 0,87 1,24 3,04 2,23 0,18 0,10 0, 0 01 0 01 0''0 0 '3"0"0'4 0.05 O 67"U,fa 0'24' 1'6 0 44"0'58 0' o.26 o.13 o.o3 o,oi 0.01 o.03 Q.oa Q.os 0.18 0.54 0.68 0.26 0.64 0.98 0.09 o,ia o.
| |
| oa"0 0,
| |
| 0.
| |
| 9,03 0'" ". 1.94" a.07
| |
| -'-'-='-"---4-0:oa o oR-o,'IIf 8;'oo.4;oo--o IIS o',-ok-8;-ik-4N:Sx-IN-;8K-II-;-5o-8 SS-f Ss-x-'.-45-0:-o~"o cR-o-';--II'----0 91-N O.O2 O,O2 o.OO o,oO O.OO o.O1 o.O1 O.n3 O Oe ~ 0.15 O.17 O,o5 o.25 o.34 O.oi O 02 o. O, 0 0 ~ 06 0'05"Oe01 0eoo F Geoo'ooi Oooo'6 '11 0 34 'Oi'41 Ui12 "0 32 0 6T 0'ioi Fe03 'Oi 0e "2oi3 HS 0.01 0.01 0, 0, 0. 0,01 0,02 0,08 0
| |
| ~
| |
| 30
| |
| ~e 0 '7 '2 06 0
| |
| ~
| |
| 0
| |
| ~
| |
| 0.55 0.76 0.00 0 01 0.
| |
| II 0
| |
| W 2 50 O'oo O.oz z. O'.
| |
| F Qi"Oooo 0e00 r:08 V-.x7- O.o9- o.;o3 0.21-0:3r - -.W.9r A D 01 0 0 0~ 0 ~ 01 0 ~ 02 1.57
| |
| ~
| |
| U 0 ~ 02 0 ~ 03 0 ~ 01 Oe 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 01 0 09 Qo40 Oo31 Oeoe O.17 O.46 O.O1 O,QO O. O.
| |
| TOTALS VS 0 '0 0 '4 0 '9 Qe47 0 53 0 88 83 0 '7 0 '1
| |
| +~~50-0.~6..~~:W9-rhre~~a-. F Q ~ e95 2-.<~e~~~
| |
| io61 3e05 4o73 4.89 1.83 ieOO C-.g~ ~~;8~W5M 87 0.23 Oohe 24o29 N 0.56 0 55 0.42 0 49 0.60 0,82 0.49 0.40 0 '8 0,76 Q,85 0,72 1.78 2.88 0,95 2'35'.90 0 72 0.15 Oe48 14.11 30i03''
| |
| 0 2.25 2'08 1ooe 1'e09"0.94 io07 Oo65 Oe84 1 ~ 27 2'53 2.43 1e30 2 ~ 19 2e34 0 ~ 77 Oo04
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2. 3-l7 CLIMATOLOGICAL REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE YEAR USED IN THE DIFFUSION COMPUTATIONS (These data are based on climatological observations at the Hanford Meteorology Station located 14 miles northwest of the site) 3'verage Air Month Insolation 50'ind S eed Tem erat~e Preci itation Relative. Humidit 1M LT 31 1M LT 59 1M LT 59 1M LT 30) 4-74 440ly 475ly 10.3 MPH 9' MPH 52.9 oF 53.2 oF 0.46" 0. 40" 50. 4% 46.5%
| |
| 5-74 590 576 9.0 8.9 57.9 61.8 0.28 0.45 43.5 42. 3 6-74 685 628 9.0 9.2 72.6 69.4 0.12 0. 57 30.4 39.5 7-74 ~ 639 659 8~ 1 8.6 74.5 76. 4 0.71 0.14 32. 0 31.8 8-74 578 558 7~ 5 8.0 75.5 74. 2 0.19 33.0 34. 8 9-74 456 423 7.3 7.5 68.0 65.2 0. 01 0. 30 33. 0 40. 6 10-74 287 262 5.6 6.7 52.5 53.1 0. 21 0. 58 46. 0 57. 0 11-74 107 132 .5. 5 6.2 41.6 40.0 0.71 0. 8'5 74. 7 73.5 12-74 90 92 5.9 6.0 36.2 32.6 0.97 0. 86 78. 7 80.1 1-75 113 120 6.4 6.6 32.5 29.4 1.43 0.93 79.0 75.2 2-75 208 202 7.5 7.1 33.7 36.2 0.98 0.62 74.0 70.0 3-75 348 340 8.9 8.4 42.5 45. 2 0.33 0.36 56.0 55.8 AVERAGE 378 372 7.6 7.7 53.4 53. 1 6.21 6.25 52 ~ 6 53.9 KEY: LT(N) long term for N years for entry 1M - single month as listed at left T Trace
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-18 COMPARISON OF ONSITE AND LONG-TERM DIFFUSION ELEMENTS Annual Percent an Frequency of Occurrence WNP-2 Onsite Data lIanford Meteorology( )
| |
| Stabilit Classification (1 ear) Stat@on (15 ears)
| |
| Very Stable 17.74 24.29 Moderately Stable 38.47 31.58 Neutral 25.05 14.21 Unstable 17.74 30.01 Wind Direction 50' 33'.42 NNE '
| |
| NE 4.22 3.4 ENE 3.07 2.1 E 2.38 2.4 ESE 2.56 2' SE ~
| |
| 3.88 3.7 SSE 7.35 2.8 S 9.69 3.2 SSW 8.93 4.1 SW 6.11 7.2 WSW 5.07 8.5
| |
| ~ W 5.89 9.8 WNW 9.65 16. 0 NW 10.49 16. 6 NNW 8.27 4.9 N 5.94 4.5 Var 2. 04 2.4 Calm 0. 01 2.2 Wind S eed (m h) 01 2.20 Calm 1-3 0 ~
| |
| 23.73 25 '3 33.30 4-7 39.63 8-12 23.09 23.89 13-18 9.47 11.58 19-24 3.05 4.45 25-up 0.75 ].36 temperature between 33 and 245 ft. Values normalized to 100%
| |
| data.
| |
| (b) 1955-1970 winds at 50 ft, stability based on change in air temperature between 3 and 200 ft.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-19a JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES BY PASQUILL STABILITY GROUPS FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THROUGH 3/75 AT WPPSS2 FOR 33 FT LEVEL (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN -2.1 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)
| |
| SPEEO CLASS(HPH}
| |
| . CAL>.. 4~7 . 8"12 .13~.10.. 19~24~5~UP .UHKNO.. TOTAL HNK~ 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3
| |
| ...
| |
| )IE ENK KSK SE K
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| . 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 2
| |
| '0
| |
| .;....6 3
| |
| l 1
| |
| ~
| |
| 2........
| |
| It~ Q~~
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| .........0 .....-- .0.
| |
| -0 0
| |
| 0
| |
| | |
| 0.
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 6
| |
| --3--
| |
| ',.
| |
| 0 SSE 3 3 0,35~ ~~5 0 0 0 0 7 SSw S 0 0
| |
| 0 1
| |
| 9 2
| |
| ......
| |
| 1 5
| |
| 5
| |
| ..... 3.......0....,0 0 0 0
| |
| .....17 8
| |
| S9 . 4 2 1 wSw 0 0 0 '
| |
| 3 2 10
| |
| ',
| |
| w 0 1 3......,5 2 2 .0....
| |
| wNH 0 0 1 2 4 7 2 0 16 Hw 4ww
| |
| ,
| |
| 0 0 1 3.... 3........4...., 0 ....'12 .
| |
| w 0
| |
| ...0 0
| |
| ....0 ......
| |
| 2 2
| |
| 6 1
| |
| 2 3
| |
| 1 0
| |
| 1 0 Q..b 0
| |
| VAR CALM UNlcw0 0
| |
| 0
| |
| . 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 6
| |
| .....0 0 0
| |
| .0..'
| |
| 5 0
| |
| 0
| |
| .. 0....0.....,.0 0
| |
| 0
| |
| ~ 0 2
| |
| 0 20 TOTAL ...... 0 0 ...28 . 48 .....42.......22.. 13......4......i.bl Note: The speed class headings represent the following wind speeds.
| |
| Calm: 0 to 0.22 mph 1-3: 0.23 to 3.49 mph 4-7: 3. 50 to 7.49 mph 8-12: 7.50 to 12.49 mph 13-18: 12.50 to 18.49 mph 19-24: 18.50 to 24.49 mph 25-up: 24.50 mph and up
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-19b (sheet 2 of 8)
| |
| FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCEI WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THROUGH 3/75 AT WPPSS2 FOR 33 FT LEVEL (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN -1.9 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL -2.1 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)
| |
| CAlN 1~3
| |
| '0 4~7 SPEED 8~12 Cl.ASS(NPH) 13e18 19 24.-2'S~UP.'wl<k.o
| |
| '8 TOTAL .
| |
| '~
| |
| kvE 0 3 4 .1 0 0 0
| |
| .NK EkE 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 4
| |
| 0 3.....0 0 0
| |
| ........0... 0,.....0
| |
| .0 0 0
| |
| . 7..
| |
| 0
| |
| .
| |
| : 0. 1 1 1 0 0
| |
| .
| |
| ESE SE 0
| |
| 0 .
| |
| 0 0 ... 7 3
| |
| 2 0 0
| |
| ..........0..........0. '
| |
| 0 0 ..0. 0 6 9.
| |
| SSE SSw 8 .
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 .
| |
| 0 0.....4 0
| |
| '
| |
| 8
| |
| .....17-3 7 '1 0
| |
| '.7 .. 0 0
| |
| 2
| |
| .0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 ~
| |
| 11 28..
| |
| 1Z
| |
| $H ~
| |
| .0 .0 3 2 9 NSw
| |
| : w. ..
| |
| 0 0...1.... 111 1 3 0 0..0 1 1 13 23 .
| |
| '20 Nkw 0
| |
| .. kw.......o.....o....e 0
| |
| 0 1 7 2
| |
| 7 8
| |
| 8 4..
| |
| 4 2',1 3
| |
| 0 2
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 20 20 0 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 '0 7
| |
| ... CAi,tl ........... 0, ......
| |
| VkXVO 0 ..., .. 0 2
| |
| 0 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0 3
| |
| 0 7
| |
| I TDTA1 ....:.. 0 0 .. 6 1
| |
| ....87 .72 1
| |
| : 38. 9~20 tfote: The speed class headings represent the following wind speeds.
| |
| Calm: 0 to 0.22 mph 1-3: 0.23 to 3.49 mph 4-7: 3.50 to 7,49 mph 0-12: 7.50 to 12.49 mph 13-18: 12.50 to.18.49 mph 19-24: 18.50 to 24.49 mph
| |
| ~
| |
| 25-up: 24.50 mph and up
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-19c (sheet 3, of 8)
| |
| FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THROUGH 3/75 AT WPPSS2 for 33 FT LEVEL (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN -1.6 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL -1.9 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)
| |
| '~
| |
| SPEKD CL.ASS(XPX)
| |
| . CA/N f 003 or7 8 12 ..$ 3.$ 8.. $ 9~2k....25 .UP... UNffHO. .TOTAf.:
| |
| 0 6 33 16 7 0 0 0 62 0 4 . fo 5 .... 1...., 0.......0...:....0 ......., 20.
| |
| 0 0 12 12 0 0 0 0 an 0 5 2 0 0 l5 KSE 0 2. 13 2 0 o 0 SSK SE 0 0
| |
| 0
| |
| ~
| |
| 19 4..... 0: - .0..........0.............0 ..2317
| |
| ~
| |
| 0 31 18 0 0 0 0 50 40 .-.,7 ...... 2...,0 .......0 .........86 1 .
| |
| 3 34 I~I S 0 '
| |
| SSw 0 2n 28 21 3 70 22...I2 1 1
| |
| .5 fi .0 . 2 25 5 0
| |
| '0t u SM 0 13 17 12 4 . 1 O. 51 ffNM H 0 . 2 ... f~ ao.......ftf. 3 1 1 ....60..
| |
| 0 3 16 5 6 5 '. 0 36 HNH N0i 0
| |
| 6 3
| |
| 17 28
| |
| ...7..7..
| |
| 13 '
| |
| 6 7
| |
| 2
| |
| '
| |
| 0 1
| |
| 0 '208.
| |
| YAR 0.....0 ...5o27 0
| |
| a8 3
| |
| 7 o 0 o 8L 38 Clf,H VN >(No 0
| |
| n 8
| |
| 0 0 9
| |
| 0....
| |
| 4 0.....0...0.....0.
| |
| 0 o
| |
| 0 0 0 9 a3 0
| |
| 03,......31...7..$
| |
| 1 O O TOTAL. ,0 . 51 . 382 ..... 20$ ... $ 2 827,.
| |
| I Note: The speed class headings represent the following wind sp<<<<ds.
| |
| Calm: 0 to 0.22 mph 1-3 : 0.23 to 3.49 mph 4-7 : 3.50 to 7.49 mph 8-12: 7.50 to 12.49 mph 13-18: 12.50 to 18.49 mph 19-24: 18.'50 to 24.49 mph 25-up: 24.50 mph and up
| |
| | |
| WNP-,2 ER TABLE 2.3-19d (shee0 4 of 8)
| |
| FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THROUGH 3/75 AT WPPSS2 FOR 33 FT LEVEL (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN -0.5 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL -1.6 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)
| |
| SPKKO Cf.ASS(MPH)
| |
| '
| |
| CALrr'>3 Oi7 8~f2 ..fgsff} .,f9w2lf, 2'PeUP'HQP TPTAL kMK KMK 0 23 20 19
| |
| .
| |
| 50 26, 38 2rr 12 14
| |
| .....,
| |
| rr 1......
| |
| 0 2..0....
| |
| 0 0 0 '
| |
| 2 9=
| |
| 103
| |
| .61 72 KSK
| |
| .0.......17..20.....9. O.
| |
| 0 0 9 U 95 SK SSK 0
| |
| 0 0 'rr 32 33 31 53 88
| |
| ..
| |
| 30 rr 9 .... .....0...0...1 0
| |
| 4 3
| |
| 0 0 1 68
| |
| .100.
| |
| frr5 S 0 24 Trr 91 ... 3rr ...210 0 0 0
| |
| .:.......0........1...226 ....
| |
| SSX 9M,.O.... 0 35 31 68
| |
| .......'l< ..R222 95 69 18 23 ll 3
| |
| 9 ~i1 7 287 XSX
| |
| .
| |
| 0 0 ..
| |
| 22 20 ..36 34
| |
| ... 29 20 30... 11.. 6.,3 1 0 110 135 xHH 0 3>
| |
| '3 53 53 rr3 255 32 7 226
| |
| .....,0 lt~
| |
| 1 Nrr Nwx 0
| |
| ....,33 rr3
| |
| ...,Srr ... 59,...3".,
| |
| rr8 l
| |
| .. 9 252
| |
| >5 2 0 2 203 9 r>. 5< 'H > Lhk VkR 0 22 22 1 0 0 0 0 45 CALH .......... 0...,... o . 0 ...,0....,.0......0 .0, .0 ..0.
| |
| l(ote: The speed class headings represent the followfng wfnd speeds..
| |
| Calm: 0 to 0.22 mph 1-3 : 0.23 to 3.49 mph 4-7 : 3. 50 to 7.49 mph 0-12: 7.50 to 12.49 mph 13-18: 12.50 to 10.49 mph 19-24: 18.50 to 24.49 mph 25-up: 24.50 mph and up ~
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 2. 3-19e (sheet 5 of 8)
| |
| FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCEi WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THROUGH 3/75 AT WPPSS2 FOR 33 FT LEVEL (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN 1.6 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL -0.5 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)
| |
| SPKKO CLASS(MPH)
| |
| ...CALM ..1~3 :a 7 8 12 ..13~18 . 19~2A. TOTAL-'
| |
| '0
| |
| .25eUP UHMO NNK 0 25 12 2 0 0 0 0 39 NK 0 22 31 .1
| |
| 'o .... ....0.. 0.....2 ....
| |
| !!~~S
| |
| . 0 56 lb
| |
| .... K=..0..
| |
| KNK 0 la 25 18 2 !!
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 3 aa 26
| |
| | |
| KSK 0 15 a 0 a5.
| |
| --
| |
| 0 0 . 0 SK 0 23 39 22 ........2., - ~ 1-.-- 0 --87 SSK 0 31 7a 11 3 0 '
| |
| 189 S . n 38 67 bb ... 29 .... 1 ......0 .......0 ....201...
| |
| SSw
| |
| .SN NSw
| |
| . 0..
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 22 19 2u 59 57 aa a8 al a5 12 28 6
| |
| '
| |
| 3 5
| |
| 3 210 133
| |
| 'N!Nw 0 32 51 52 15 .3 0 .2....155 0 50 62 103 82 2a 6 1 348 NNW Nw . 0 0
| |
| 33 a3 121 82 115......, 32.. 5.....0........ 0........ 306 .
| |
| ,.
| |
| VAR H...... ..38la 0
| |
| 0
| |
| ~ ..3'5 9
| |
| 7
| |
| ! '
| |
| . 0 Q
| |
| 0 I! U 3 178
| |
| !!9 1 . 0 0 0 27
| |
| ~
| |
| CALN UNKN0 1
| |
| 0 0 0 6
| |
| ..0.......0.....0 0 0 1 T0TAL... 1 .a71 822 77 0
| |
| .= 0 19 11
| |
| ..4b 25 23.0.6 tlote: The speed class headings represent the follow5ng wind speeds.
| |
| Calm: 0 to 0.22 mph 1-3: 0.23 to 3.49 mph 4-7: 3.50 to 7.49 mph 8-12: 7.50 to 12.49 mph 13-18: 12.50 to )8.49 mph 19-24'8.50 to 24.49 mph 25-up: 24.50 mph and up
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-19f (sheet 6 of 8)
| |
| FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THROUGH 3/75 AT WPPSS2 FOR, 33 FT LEVEL (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN 4.4 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL. 1.6 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)
| |
| C<L~ le3 a 7 8<<$ 2 13 18 $ 9 Za..25~uP; .uNNN0 ...TOTAL,$
| |
| 0 30 28 3 0 0 0 0 . 65 M5 0 15 20 .. 3 .. o.....0.........1 ......al.....
| |
| EuE, ES K f.. ...
| |
| 0 0 ....
| |
| 0
| |
| .
| |
| 21 1 9 1 6 16
| |
| $
| |
| 6 6
| |
| 2 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0.
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| .'5 32 SE 0 17 ao 10... 0 0 ... 0.........0...
| |
| ' . 67......
| |
| .SSK . 0 17 76 1 O. 130 0 20 63 o7 o,.... 0 ......5: 14a......
| |
| SSW 0 20 68 35 8 0 0 131
| |
| .. 9 65 '
| |
| '0 O.. 2O 32 a Q WSW 0 29 7 0 0 0 0 71 Wuw 0
| |
| 0 20 33 35'2 39 26....2...,
| |
| 4'3 '
| |
| 0' 0
| |
| 5 2
| |
| 85 118 uuw 0 . 34 25 ........ $ .....0... 0 3 .127 .
| |
| '$16 0 76 8 0 0 ,1 VAR u .0 0
| |
| .38 2i?
| |
| 33 7 0 0
| |
| 0
| |
| '
| |
| 0 0'
| |
| 0 O~R 0 ~ 29
| |
| =
| |
| . '
| |
| n 0 0 ....0 . 0.. o.. 0 0
| |
| 'uuxu0 0 1 o o . 0 0 10 15 TOTAL,'. 0 . 007 655 . 2SP.. R6. 0. 0 .H W15
| |
| 'ote: The speed class headings represent the following wind speeds.
| |
| Calm: 0 to 0.22 mph 1-3; 0.23 to 3.49 mph 4-7: 3.50 to 7.49 mph 8-12: 7.50 to 12,49 mph
| |
| ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| 13-18: 12.50 to 18.49 mph 19-24: 18.50 to 24.49 mph 25-up: 24,50 mph and up
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-19 (sheet 7 of 8)
| |
| FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THROUGH 3/75 AT WPPSS2, FOR 33 FT LEVEL (TEMPERATURE CHANGE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL 4.4 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)
| |
| SPEED Cf.ASS(HPH)
| |
| . C>L, fl f o3 4e7 . 8~$ 2..13>>18 ...19~24..25rUP UNKHO.. TOT,AL.
| |
| NuE 0 53 35 '1 0
| |
| ' 0 0 89 2........ 0.....,.0 ..0...100
| |
| ~a BE 69 29 EhK 0
| |
| 0 47 22 0 0 0
| |
| . 0 0 '0 E 0 44 . -b o a ESE 0 36 0 0 0 0 Q 45 SE 0 15 21 ~ .. 0-..........0..--..-0.-- 0.. 0....36.
| |
| SSE SSV S
| |
| Sw, 5
| |
| 0 0.
| |
| 0 0,
| |
| fh 18 '3 21....51 27....19 ab 18
| |
| ......41.
| |
| 12 0
| |
| 0 1
| |
| .'.
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| ..0, 0
| |
| Jl 2
| |
| 2 0
| |
| 1 115 84 54, 5 I wSA 0 0 ...
| |
| <<1 13 .. 13 11 .. 2........ 0..0.
| |
| 0 0 1 Q . 26 i~ ..0.
| |
| @HE 0 25 19 3 0 0 1 48 NM 0 . 44 .. 53 ...13.......0,.... 0 1 1' 1.
| |
| Nnw 0 52 58 3 '0 113 VAR GALS N P.
| |
| 0 0
| |
| '3 63 0
| |
| .
| |
| .
| |
| 3 0
| |
| 0 ~
| |
| Q....
| |
| 0
| |
| ..0 0
| |
| tt 0 0 9
| |
| 0 0,
| |
| 0..0 26 UNKNO 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 11 TOTAL, 0 50P 458 f 04:.....,, .1.....0......0 .....$ 0.... $ 170 Note: The speed class headfngs represent the followfng wfnd speeds.
| |
| Calm: 0 to 0.22 mph 1-3: 0.23 to 3.49 mph 4-7: 3.50 to 7.49 mph 8-12: 7.50 to 12.49 mph 13-18: 12.50 to 18.49 mph 19>>24: 18.50 to 24.49 mph 25-up: 24.60 mph and up
| |
| \
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-19h (sheet 8 of 8)
| |
| FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THROUGH 3/75 AT WPPSS2 FOR 33 FT LEVEL (TEMPERATURE CHANGE IN DEGREES F PER 200 FT UNKNOWN)
| |
| SPEE0 CLass{HPHi QAL, N 1e3 4~7 ... 8 12 ..13m.18 19~24 2s.v UP UHKNQ T.O.LAI~:
| |
| Nh'K 0 0 3 0 0 .0 0 'o hE KHK 0
| |
| 0
| |
| ...
| |
| 0 1 3 2
| |
| -..-- 1-0
| |
| .,0. ..0 0' 5 0 0 0 0 2
| |
| ...E O. 2 3 J) 0 0 0 0 5
| |
| ----0-"-2 ESK 0 0 0 0
| |
| ' 0 0 2 SK 0 0 - 0 "- -.0 -
| |
| SSK 0 2 0 0 0 1
| |
| .....,.2....0....0 0 0 SSw 5
| |
| S'rl 0
| |
| 0 0.
| |
| 0 0
| |
| : 0. ,o~
| |
| n 0 2 1 a
| |
| ' 0 0
| |
| o
| |
| '
| |
| .o 2 HSH o..o.
| |
| ~
| |
| 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 ..... 0 .....o... o a. o.
| |
| HAM Nw NNbf 0
| |
| n 0
| |
| 0'.
| |
| 0 0 3
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 1 0
| |
| 0 2
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 1 '0...0. 0 0
| |
| .0 0
| |
| 0 1
| |
| 0 ~ 4 1- 0 0 0 o VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
| |
| :,. CALH . 0 0 0 -... .....0...... 0 .0 .O 0 UHKh0 0 7 4 3 0 0 2]o 231 o,... TOTil 0 . 1 0.... 26 -.. 12"---- 6. 1
| |
| ,
| |
| 0 214 269 Note: The speed class headings represent the following wound speeds.
| |
| Calm: 0 to 0.22 mph 1-3 : 0.23. to 3.49 mph 4-7 : 3.50 to 7.49 mph 8-12: 7.50 to 12.49 mph 13-18: 12.50 to 10.49 mph 19-24: 18.50 to 24.49 mph 25-up: 24.50 mph and up
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.3-20 COMPARISON OF MONTHLY AVERAGE AND EXTREMES OF HOURLY AVERAGE AIR TEMPERATURES lfHP-2 (1) HMS (3' One Year of Data One Year of Data Lon -Term Summar Averacee Max Min Average ~verarV e Max Min Jan 32;3 55.4 18.1 32. 0 29.4 66 -23 Feb 33.8 60.4 12.8 33. 6 36.2 71 -23 Mar 41.9 64.8 21.8 42. 0 45.2 83 26 Apr 52.2 76.2 35.1 52. 5 53.2 95 12 May 57.4 84.8 36.9 57.9 61.8 103 28 Jun 72.5 103.5 45.9 73.3 69.4 110 33 Jul 73.6 104.5 49.6 74.8 76.4 115 41 Aug 74.7 103.8 50.6 76. 3 74.2 113 40 Sep 66.9 91.5 45.9 68. 3 65.2 102 25 Oct 51.7 80.8 31.7 52. 0 53.1 90 6 Nov 42.1 60 ' 24.7 42.1 40. 0 73 -1 Dec 33.8 59. 6 20.8 35.7 32. 6 68 -27 YEAR 53.5 104.5 12.8 53.5 53.1 115 -27 (F)
| |
| (1) One year of data at 7', 4/74 to 3/75. All values are hourly averages.
| |
| (2) Surface air temperature observations at Hanford townsite and HMS for period 1912-1970. Maximums and minimums are observed values.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 2. 3-21 COMPARISON OF MONTHLY AVERAGES OF WET 'BULB TEMPERATURES WNP-2 HMS HMS One Year(1) One Year 2) Long Term(
| |
| Jan 30.3 30.0 27.9 Feb 30. 9 31.0 33.6 Mar 36. 2 36. 0 37.3 Apr 44.7 43. 9 42.8 May 47.2 46.5 49.1 Jun 56. 0 54.5 54. 5 Jul 57.4 41.0 42-. 3 Aug 58.0 43.2 42. 8
| |
| 'Sep 52.6 52. 0 52. 6 Oct 43.8 42. 0 45. 4 Nov 39.3 38. 0 36. 4 31.2
| |
| ->>
| |
| Dec 34.5 33.0 YEAR 44.3 43.4 43.8
| |
| ( F)
| |
| TIl ', / " /
| |
| (2) year of data at 3', 4/74 to 3/75.
| |
| (3)'0One years of HMS HMS data at 3', 1950-1970.
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.3-22a FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF WET BULB VALUES A FUNCTION OF TIME OF DAY BASED ON WNP-2 SITE DATA 4/74 3/75 (Wet Bulb intervals are iven in the left column in 'F.)
| |
| TlNE OF DAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 "20 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20~]5 0 0 o n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n
| |
| ]O
| |
| -10 ~ 5 O
| |
| O 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0
| |
| .0 0
| |
| 0..0 0 0
| |
| ~
| |
| 0 0
| |
| - 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| o o 0 0 0 o n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O n O 0 5]n O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 15 2O 2 7 8....9 . 8 5 . 3 3 .S ,3.
| |
| 20 25 lu 15 f8 la ]4 f6 ]8 15 9 8 8 6 6 25 jn 35 33 35 42 4] 43 41 34 30 24 14 10 7 30 35 uu 51 46 ~
| |
| 47 50 45 42 37 S2 33 39 43 33 35 un 54 51 58 57 oG 67 eo sl aa 41 45 S9 50 un 45 73 73 es 65 se 53 SS 52 5] S2 SO 45 as 50 44 52 . 54 a9 4]]
| |
| -51 .. 47 .. 51 u7 39,49 51 sq .. 52.
| |
| sn 55 48 5o 51 51 38 39 43 42 39 44 49
| |
| -"0 33 27 23 2S 4] 36 S8 .49 So so 60 o5 e 5 8 18 23 33 39 43 46 70 0 ! 0 0 n 0 0 0 3 5 6 8 12 70 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 75 80 8
| |
| : 0. G 0 0
| |
| 0....0 n
| |
| .. 0.. %..0 ..0 0. n.
| |
| 0 0 0 0 o o 0 o o o 0
| |
| ]]~ <Io 4 ~ 4 5 5 S 18 48 37 19 1S 12 TOT kf. 365 3os 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365
| |
| <<ER4GE F')R HOUR 41 '58 40 '79 40 '62 u2,287 4S,282 ue,998 1 ~ 852 40 930 40 ~ leo 41 ~ 040 43 ~ 750 46 ~ 103 4 ~
| |
| eo2
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.3-22b (sheet 2 of 2)
| |
| TTHE OF DAY 14- 15 )6 17 18 19 20 21 2i? 23 24 tOTAL
| |
| ~ '20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 "20~)5 0 0 o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 )O Q 0 0 .0 0 0 . 0 .0 0 0 0 0
| |
| )C~ 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 15 15 20 20 25 0
| |
| 3...
| |
| 6
| |
| . 0 2
| |
| 6 2..2.113 0
| |
| 5 0
| |
| 7 8 1
| |
| 10 1 1 9 8 2
| |
| 2 10 2
| |
| 9 2
| |
| 1 12 i?5 88 251 25 30 7 7 lp 1 1 lu 16 16 2$ .26 35 39 597 30 35 26 24 28 3) 35 u) ab 47 55 4'7 44 948 35 40 49 51 SV 5O b2 48 ub u8 aa 56 49 1220 ao 45 53 51 51 u8 au u8 Sg 62 56 '57 oS 13jo a5 50 50 55
| |
| .Sn 49 52 48..4749 ..52...
| |
| 51 61 43 42 55 4'9 43 55
| |
| .. 52 48 49
| |
| . 52 44 1178 1124 55 52 47 ub aa 51 ub 39 45 46 48 44 974 60 65 47 45 kk 45 44 41 3$ 19 11 601 h5 70 15 21 24 23 17 14 9 4 1 1 0 164 70 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 80 0 0 D...,D 0 0 0 D 0 0 .
| |
| 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UVQQO 8 7 6 6 b 3 3 S 4 4 4 234 TOTAL 365 365 365 365 365 365 36b 365 365 365 365 8760 AVERAGE F~)R HOUR 48 ~ 166 48o279 47 ~ 205 <<5 ~ 191 "3 ~ 472 42 ~ 290 48 ~ 430 47 ~ 950 "bo 198 44 ~ 272 42 ~ 846 44 ~ 266
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.3-23 MONTHLY AVERAGES OF PSYCHROMETRIC DATA BASED ON PERIOD OF RECORD l950-70 AVERAGES Jan Fe Nar A~r 8~a Jun Ju AucC ~Se Oct Nov Dec Dry Bulb 30.3 37.5 44.0 52.5 61.8 69.9 77.5 75.3 67.0 53. 2 40. 1 33. 4 53. 5 Ifet Bulb 27.9 33.6 37.3 .42.8 49.1 54.5 57.9 57.3 52.6 45.4 36.4 31.2 43.8 Rel. Hun. 76.0 69.7 55.0 46.4 41.8 39.4 31.5 34.9 39.9 57.7 72.6 80.8 53.8 Dewpoint 23.2 27.4 27.3 30.4 36.0 41.2 42.3 42.8 39.5 36.9 31.1 27.5 33.8 DRY BU .B NONTHLY AVERAGE EXTRENES Highest 43.0 44.0 48.7 56.2 68 ' 75.5 82.8 82.5 72.0 59. 1 45.8 38.8 56. 3 Year 1953 1958 1963 1956 1958 1969 1960 1967 1967 1952 1954 1953 1958 Lowest 12.9 25 ' 39 ' 48.3 57.2 64.2 73.2 70.6 61.6 50.3 32.3 26.5 51. 0 Year 1950 1956 1955 1955 1962 1953 1963 1964 1970 1968 1955 1964 1955+
| |
| IIET BULB NONTHLY AVERAGE EX P~ES Highest .39. 3 40. 7 40.8 45.1 54.6 58. 6 61. 2 61.1 56.5 47.7 42.3 35.8 46. 5 Year 1953 1950 1968 1962 1953 1958 1958 1961 1963 1962 1954 1966 1958 Lowest 12.4 23.4 32.9 39.3 45.4 51.4 55.6 54.9 48.3 42,4 29.6 25.0 41. 8 Year 1950 1956 1955 1955 1959 1954 1954 1964 1970 1960 1955 1964 1955 I
| |
| REL. HUN.
| |
| NONTHLY AVERAGE EXTRENES Highest 89.0 87.0 66.0 64.0 <<52.0 54.0 40. 0 44. 0 55. 0 '74. 0 Co. 0 90. 0 58. 0 Year 1960 1963 1950 1963 1962+ 1950 1955 1968 1959 1962 1956 1950 1950i Lowest 60.0 54'.0 44.0 37. 0 31. 0 34. 0 22.0 24.0 34.0 42.0 64.0 69.0 49. 0 Year 1963 1967 .1965 1966 1966 1960 1959 1967 1952 1952 1963+ 1968 1967 DEIIPOZNT NONTHLY AVERAGE EXTRENES Highest 34.4 36.7 34.0 37.1 43. 8 47.5 46.6 46.9 45. 4 43 5 30. 3 34. 3 37.7 Year 1953 1958 1961 1953 1957 1958 .1958. )961 1963 1962 1954 1950 1958 Lowest 6.5 17.3 20.3 26.2 30.4 37.5 35.4 38.4 33. 8 32.1 24.0 21.0 31.5 Year 1950 1956 1965+ 1955 19f4 1954 <<1959 <<'1955 1970 1970 1959 1951 1955
| |
| ~ V a I y Although not included in thcsc tables. an average of 63t was recorded in 1943
| |
| | |
| TABIB 2.3-24 MISCELLANEOUS SNOWFALL STATISTICS: 1946 THROUGH 1970 AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS WITH DEPTH AT 0400 PST Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Season 1" or More 10 21 3" or More 6" or More ll 5
| |
| 12" or More RECORD GREATEST NUMBER OF DAYS WITH DEPTH AT 0400 PST 1" or More 3" or More (1955) ll (1964+) 17 (1969) 31 (1950) 17 (1951) 3 (1955-56) 54-(1955) 10 (1955) 14 (1969) 23 (1950) 16 0 (1949-50) 33 6" or More 0 (1964) 12 (1965) 23 (1969+) 8 0 (1949-50) 23 12 or More 0 (1964) 4 (1969) 1 0 0 (1964-65) 4 PZCORD GREATEST DEPTH (1957) 0.3 (1946) 5.1 (1964) 12.1 (1969) 12.0 (1969) 10.0 (1957) 2.3 (Dec 1964) 12.1 GREATEST IN 24 HOURS (1957) 0. 3 (1955) 4. 8 (1965) 5.4 (1954) 7.1 (1959) 5.2 (1957+) 2.2 (Jan 1954) 7.1 AVERAGE PERCENT OF WATER EQUIVALENT OF ALL PRECIPITATION 14 46 48 29 14 26
| |
| + Denotes also in earlier years
| |
| * Denotes less than 1/2 day
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.3-25 AVERAGE RETURN PERIOD (R) AND EXISTING RECORD (ER) FOR VARIOUS PRECIPITATION AMOUNTS AND INTENSITY DURING SPECIFIED TIME PERIODS AT HANFORD (BASED ON EXTREME VALUE ANALYSIS OF 1947-1969 RECORDS)
| |
| AMOUNT (INCHES) INTENSITY (INCHES PER HOUR)
| |
| TIME PERIOD TIME PERIOD R (Years) 20 Min 60 Min 2 Hrs 3 Hrs 6 Hrs 12 Hrs 24 Hrs 20 Min 60 Man 2 Hrs 3 Hrs 6 Hrs 12 Hrs 24 Hrs 2 0.16 0. 26 0. 30 0. 36 0. 48 0. 62 0. 72 0.49 0.26 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.052 0.030 5 0.24 0 40 0 48 0 55 0 77 0 95 1. 06 0. 72 0.40 0.24 0.18 0.13 0.079 0.044 10 0. 37 0. 50 0.59 0.67 0.96 1.17 l. 28 0.50 0.30 0.22 0.16 0.098 0.053 25 0. 47 0. 62 0.74 0.83 1.21 1.45 l. 56 1.4 0. 62 0.37 0.28 0.20 0.121 0 '65 50 0. 53 0. 72 0. 85 0. 96 l. 40 l. 66 l. 77 1.6 0.72 0.42 0.32 0.23 0.138 0.074 100 0. 60 0. 81 0. 96 1. 07 l. 59 1.87 l. 99 1.8 0.81 0 '8 0. 36 0.27 0.156 0.083 250 0. 68 0. 93 l. 11 l. 22 1. 82 2.13 2. 26 2.0 0.93 0.55 0.41 0.30 0.177 0.094 500 0. 73 1. 02 l. 22 l. 33 2. 00 2. 34 2. 47 2.2 1.02 0.61 0.44 0.33 0.195 0.103 1000 0. 80 l. 11 l. 33 l. 45 2. 20 2.55 2. 63 2.4 1.11 0.67 0.48 0.37 0.212 0.112
| |
| : 0. 59 0. 88 1. 08 1. 68 1. 88 1. 91
| |
| * 0.59 0.44 0. 36 0.28 0.157 0. 080 I
| |
| 6/12 10/1 10/1 10/1-2 10/1-2 10/1-2 6/12 10/1 10/1 10/1-2 10/1-2 10/1-2 DATE 1969 1957 1957 1957 1957 1957 1969 1957 1957 1957 1957 1957 No records have been kept for time periods of less than 60 minutes. However, the rain chart for 6-12-69 shows that 0.55 inch occurred during a 20-minute period from 1835 to 1855 pST. An additional gage 0.04 inch occurred between 1855 and 1910 to account for the record 60-minute amount of 0.59 inch.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 2. 3-26a WNP-2 ONSITE JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF'WINDS FOR RAIN INTENSITY CLASSES, RAIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO .016 INCHES PER HOUR SPEED CLASS(HPH)
| |
| CALI< 1 4 7 8 12 13 18 19 24 25 OP gkKNO TOTA1.
| |
| ka,<E 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0
| |
| NE 0
| |
| - --<<0 '5 0 0 0 . 0 n E<;< 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 E ~ -. 0 1 4 - ~ - 0 ~
| |
| 0 ~ -
| |
| ESE 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 Sc 0 2 1 0 0 0 SSE SSw Sw wSR S
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0 ~
| |
| 4 3
| |
| 1 1
| |
| 0
| |
| .---
| |
| 2 3
| |
| 3 3
| |
| -4 e
| |
| 5 2
| |
| 4 1
| |
| | |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| 4 0
| |
| 3 1
| |
| 0 0
| |
| -
| |
| --o 1
| |
| o 1
| |
| 1 0 ~
| |
| o o
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 1
| |
| -0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 n
| |
| 21 11 14 9-5
| |
| | |
| wkM 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 12 C
| |
| NW VAR
| |
| 'L'I N ~
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0
| |
| ~ -- ~
| |
| j 2
| |
| 0 2
| |
| 0 1O 10 1
| |
| 1 0 ~
| |
| '
| |
| ~
| |
| 5 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| -
| |
| *- -0 1
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0
| |
| "~
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| -0 "- "0
| |
| ~
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0-0 0 -. ~
| |
| 21 14 3
| |
| 0 t,"4K '<O 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 1 TOT AI. 0 5e eo 38 10 3 -- 1 149 TABLE 2.3-26b WNP-2 ONSITE JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WINDS FOR RAIN INTENSITY CLASSES, RAIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.50 INCHES PER HOUR
| |
| 'SPEED CLASS(HPH)
| |
| CALM 1<3 4 7 8 12 13<<18 19 24 25 UP UNKt O TOTAL
| |
| | |
| NNE 0 o o o o o 1 2 kE 0 1 0 0 0 <<
| |
| 0
| |
| ' 1 ENE Et $'
| |
| 0 0
| |
| o
| |
| -- 0 n
| |
| 0 n
| |
| 0
| |
| - n-0 0
| |
| 0 o
| |
| 0 0
| |
| p 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0
| |
| .p 0 0
| |
| 0 0-0 0 0 n 0 0 "'" 0 ~
| |
| 0
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| 1 5 5P 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 5 S 0 0 0 ~
| |
| 0 0 ~ - 0 -~ --" 0 -- ~
| |
| 0 0 SSw
| |
| - 0 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 2 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 2 0
| |
| S<I 0...
| |
| '<
| |
| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1'"- 0 1
| |
| "~ -- "-- ----- 1
| |
| | |
| < ~
| |
| 0 ~
| |
| 0 ~
| |
| 0 0'
| |
| 2 k'<w 0
| |
| 0 0 0 1
| |
| --- 0
| |
| : 3. "00 -----
| |
| 0 0 < ---0
| |
| ~
| |
| 0 0 ~ -- ~
| |
| 2 4
| |
| 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 k 0 "0 0 << 0 0 0 0 VAR CALH OI'< "0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| ~
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| - " "'
| |
| 0 0
| |
| ' 0 0
| |
| '
| |
| 0
| |
| -- 0 0 "--"
| |
| TOTAL 0 2 0
| |
| 5---- 1 0
| |
| 2 0
| |
| 2 "0 '"'-" 0'"
| |
| 0 0 0 0 -""" 21 0
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-26c
| |
| ~sect 2~o3)
| |
| WNP-2 ONSITE JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WINDS FOR RAIN INTENSITY CLASSES, RAIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO .160 INCHES PER HOUR SPEEO CLASS(MPII)
| |
| CALM 1r3 Qa7 8"12 0,0 13 18 ]9r24 25rUP UNKNO TOTAL
| |
| .0:
| |
| hiK 0 0 0 0 0 g>C '
| |
| 0 0 0 0 0 0 E h S'Sc 0
| |
| 0""-.00 0 0
| |
| 0 0 0
| |
| 0 0 0
| |
| 0 "0 0
| |
| 0 0 0
| |
| 0
| |
| .0- 0 0
| |
| '
| |
| 0 0
| |
| i 0 0 0 0 - Q 0 SS1. 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 S 0 0 0 .0 0" . 0 -- 0 SSH NSw 0
| |
| 0-0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 o
| |
| 0 0
| |
| o 0
| |
| 0 o
| |
| 0 0
| |
| o 0
| |
| 0 n
| |
| 0 0
| |
| o 0
| |
| 0 0 ~ - 0 ~ ~--
| |
| | |
| ti 4 N hd 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0
| |
| '-.
| |
| 0 0 ~ ~ - ~
| |
| 0 o ~
| |
| 0 n - -n--
| |
| 0 0 o
| |
| 0 0 0 0 0 0
| |
| @if'AR 0- 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 ~ --.- 0- -0 0
| |
| 0 - 0---- 0 0~ - -- 00 VII<<'O TOTAL 0
| |
| 0 0 0 0>>-
| |
| 0 0
| |
| - - 0 0 - 0 0 ---"-00 ~ ~-
| |
| TABLE 2.3-26d WNP-2 ONSITE JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WINDS FOR RAIN INTENSITY CLASSES, RAIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO .016 INCHES PER HOUR SPE80 CLA SS(MPH)
| |
| CALM ]r3 Qe7 8r]2 13 1 8 19r2Q 25 UP UNKMO 'TOTAL 00 -
| |
| 0 0 0 0 0 N.IL'wg 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| n ~
| |
| 0 0 0 0 0 Qi ~
| |
| cSS 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE. 0 0 0 0 ~
| |
| 0 0 SSC SS SA S
| |
| I'I
| |
| 'HS tl li 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0
| |
| --0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 o
| |
| 0
| |
| | |
| O 0
| |
| 0 0,.,
| |
| O 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| o 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 h4h
| |
| | |
| 0 0 0 0 0 0 a O . O - 0 ~ 0 0 htiw 0 0 p 0
| |
| ..
| |
| 0 0 -,-. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VAR 0 0 0 CALM 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 ... 0 O
| |
| 0'- - O 0 --" 0 U4Kho 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 ~ 0 0 ... 0 ., - 0
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-26e
| |
| ~se0.t 3~O3)
| |
| WNP-2 ONSXTE JOXNT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WINDS FOR RAIN INTENSITY CLASSES, RAIN INTENSXTY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 0500 INCHES PER HOUR SPEED CLA SS(MPH)
| |
| CaLv 1 r3 4 1 8 12 13 f 8 l~u24 25~UP UN<>>n TOT>L qD;8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
| |
| | |
| 00$ 0 0 0 0 O O O =
| |
| O 0 E ~ DK f 0.
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0 0--
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0
| |
| ~
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0
| |
| - 0" 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0
| |
| ".-" 0 0
| |
| 0 0 0
| |
| 0 0 SK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
| |
| SSE S
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 1 o
| |
| 0 o " 0 n "
| |
| 0 o --
| |
| 1 o
| |
| SS~ 0 0 ~
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 O 0
| |
| 0
| |
| ' O 0
| |
| O 0 0 O
| |
| 00 $ 00 Il 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| n 0
| |
| o o....o O O
| |
| ....
| |
| O o ... O o ..o..0 00 0< 00 V34 CAD u
| |
| .$
| |
| ND;h
| |
| '00 N
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 1 0
| |
| .0D.
| |
| 0 0 - ~
| |
| .
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0.
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| o 0.
| |
| 0 0 . -..
| |
| 0 o
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0,.
| |
| .
| |
| 0 n
| |
| o D
| |
| 0
| |
| ..... 0..
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 0 1
| |
| 0 0
| |
| 1 0
| |
| 0 0
| |
| UD'.%SO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTL 0
| |
| 0 0 1 0 0 ~" Q ~ 3 a'
| |
| H
| |
| ~
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 2. 3-27 MONTHLY AND ANNUAL PREVAIL1NG DIBECTIONSI AVERAGE SPE DSg AND PEAK GUSTS: 1945-1970 AT HNS (50 foot, level)
| |
| P REV IOUS AVERAGE HIGHEST LOWEST PEAK GUST iHOiVTH DEiVSETY SPEED AVERAGE YEAR AVERAGE SESS SPEED DEESZTY YEAR Jan 6.4 9. 6*, 1953 3.1 1955 65** 1967 Feb 7.0 9.4 1961 4.6 1963 63 SW 1965 EVar 10. 7 1964 5.9 1958 70 SW 1956 Apr W EVW 9.0 1959 7.4 1958 60 WSN 1969 IVay WNW 8.8 10. 5 1965+ 5.8 1957 71 SSW 1948 Jun 9.2 10. 7 1949 7.7 1950+ 72 1957 Jul W'aCC 8.6 9.6 1963 6.8 1955 55 WSW 1968 Aug 8.0 9~ 1 1946 6.0 1956 66 SW 1961 Sep 7~ 5 9.2 1961 1957 65 SSW 1953 Oct 6.7 9.1 1946 1952 63 SSW 19SO Vov 6.2 7.9 1945 2.9 1956 64 SSN 1949 Dec NW 6.0 8.3 1968 3.9 1963+ 71 SW 1955 YEAR Whd 7.6 8.3 1968+ 6.3 1957, 72"* SW 1957 (Jun)
| |
| The average speed :or January, 1972, was '0.3 mph.
| |
| *" Dn January '1, 1972, a new all-time record peak gust of 80 mph was established.
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.3-28 MONTHLY MEANS OF DAILY MIXING HEIGHT AND AVERAGE 1IIND SPEED Avera e Dail Minimum Avera e Dail Maximum Morning Afternoon l1eters Meters/sec Meters Meters/sec January 302 4.8 295 4.6 February 341 4.8 658 5.3 March 388 5.6 1331 5.6 April 350 5.4 1966 6.7 May 288 4.7 2243 5.9 June 263 4.3 2440 5.7 July 208 3.9 2703 5.2 August 235 F 1 2439 4.8 September 189 3.6 1922 4.9 October 192 3.8 1076 5 '
| |
| November 300 4' 505 4.6 December 367 4.5 316 4.6
| |
| : a. Spokane, HA, Radisonde Data, Period of Record 1/60 - 12/64.
| |
| | |
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 WIND SPEED GROUPS (MPH) 0 -3 I.INE 4 - 7 SHADE 8- 12 OPEN 13 - 18 SHADE 19 -24 OPEN 25 UP SHADE Amendment 4, October 1980 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WIND ROSE FOR WNP-2 FOR WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 4-74 TO 3-75 AT THE 7 FT LEVEL Environmental Report FIG- 2. 3- 1
| |
| | |
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 WIND SPEED GROUPS (MPH) 0-3 LINE 4 -7 SHADE 8 -. 12 OPEN FIGHT 13 - 1$ SHADE 19 - 24 OPEN 25 UP SHADE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WIND ROSE FOR WNP-2 FOR WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 4-74 TO 3-75 AT THE 33 FT LEVEL Environmental Report 2.3-2
| |
| | |
| W E k
| |
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 WIND SPEED GROUPS (MPH) 0-3 LINE 4 -7 SHADE 8 - 12 OPEN FIGHT
| |
| '3 - 18 SHADE 19 - 24 OPEN 25 UP SHADE Amendment 4, October 1980,'ASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WIND ROSE FOR WNP-2 FOR WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 4-74 TO 3-75 AT 245 FT LEVEL Environmental Report F 3 3
| |
| | |
| 1 2 PERCENT SCAlE WIND SPEED GROUPS IMPH) 0-3 LINE 4 -7 SHADE 8- 12 OPEN 13 - 1B SHADE 19 - 24 OPEN 25 UP SHADE STAB I LI'TY DEF INITION OF hT I F 1200 IO UNSTABLE: hT( -1.5 NEUTRAL -0.5> 6T>.1.5 MODERATELY STABlE: 3.5 > hT > -0.5 VERY STAB!.E: dT > 3.5 UNSTABLE NEUTRAL MODERATELY VERY FIGHT STABLE STABLE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WIND ROSES FOR HANFORD STABILITY WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO ~ 2 CLASSES AT WNP-2 FOR 4-74 TO 3-75 Environmental Report AT THE 33 FT LEVEL 2.3-4
| |
| | |
| 0,77 Ot15 O.DI
| |
| .48 NEUTRAL UNSTABLE CL 14 48 VERY STABLE hIODERATELY STABLE STAB I llT Y OEF IN I 7 ION OF AT A'7200 IB UNSTABLE: AT( -15 NEUTRAL .05> AT> -1.5 h'IODERATELY STABlE: 35 > AT > -0.5 VERY STABLE: hT >3.5 0 IL25 ILS 0.75 1 1.25 PERCENT SCALE WIND ROSES BY STABILITY 4.9 24 >24 VAR 1-3 4-7 8.12 CA WIND SPEED GROUPS LMPN)
| |
| All 8'TAB ILITIES 0 1 2 3 4 5 PERCENT PERSISTENCE SCALE FOR All.STABILITIES WIND ROSES AS A FUNCTION OF HANFORD OF HMS BASED ON WINDS AT 200 FT WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM AND AIR TEMPERATURE STABILITIES WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO ~ 2 BETWEEN 3 FT AND 200 FT FOR THE Environmental Report PERIOD 1955 THROUGH 1970 FIG. 2.3-5
| |
| | |
| 1 r~ L g
| |
| &.6 S.S 7.7 6.1 9 3.9 I WAHLUKE Vg~
| |
| 2.7 4.5 I r-~ 3 4.54 r"r 45 829 I 4.1 L~
| |
| S.l 2.5 I I I SLOPE L~ -N-r- 4.8 3.9 2.9 I
| |
| I L I
| |
| '----1 I
| |
| HANIORO I
| |
| I L~
| |
| Ikd I I
| |
| 3.6 9 5.5 1 I 10 I
| |
| 2.8 3.1 6.8 l
| |
| 8.?,
| |
| 4.8 5.3 2.1 I
| |
| I I
| |
| 12 7.1 2.1 4.4 33 13 6.4 6.3 '4 7.1 7.5 RINGOLO 5.3 I 4.7 6.5 5.8 210 3.8 I 11 23 I I 3.6 I.S % SCAIE I
| |
| 0 10 20 30 41 50 I 40 516.4 64 I 14 VAR.
| |
| 3.6 y- 4LO 74 CIM.
| |
| I 1.3 17 ~OF 1IME 48 7.3 83 74 10.9 SPEEO 5.1 0 I ~ 2 3 4 5 I
| |
| 5.9 SCAIE M IIES I
| |
| c 71 O.d REICHIAN I %93 "
| |
| ">>; S.S 15 S.S l,l 7 dl P I 18 7.0 I 3.3 ~ .,~ 4.1 (I,
| |
| 4.2 I'.7 kl 23 4.1
| |
| '( D SINlON C I IY ~
| |
| PASCO 7.5 KINNEWICK SURFACE WIND ROSES FOR VARIOUS LOCA-SHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM TIONS ON AND SURROUNDING THE HANFORD WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 SITE BASED ON FIVE-YEAR AVERAGES Environmental Report (1952-1956). SPEEDS ARE GIVEN IN PER HOUR FIG.
| |
| | |
| MONTHLY AND ANNUAL HOURLY AVERAGES OF DRY BULB (D. B. ) AND WET BULB (W. B. ) TEAIPERATURE RELATI VE HUMI DI TY (R. H. ) AND TEMPERATURE OF THE DEW POI NI'D. P. )
| |
| ~
| |
| (1957.1970) 90 JANUARY 80 R.H. FEBRUARY 80
| |
| ' r R.H 70 ' r 70 60 50 50 40 i=i 40 W.B. TEMP. D.B.
| |
| TEMP. D.B.
| |
| c 30 D.B.
| |
| D. P.
| |
| 10 ~ 10 0
| |
| 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 02 04 06 08 10 12" ~ 14 16 18 20 22 24 PST PST MARCH APRIL 80 80 t
| |
| l 70 ' 70 r \
| |
| R.H, 60 TEMP. D.B.
| |
| '
| |
| 50 50 TEMP. D. B. W.B.
| |
| 40 z Ch 40 '
| |
| W. B. 30 D. P.
| |
| D. P.
| |
| 20 10 10 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 (ST PST WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM MONTHLY HOURLY AVERAGES. OF WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO ~ 2 TEMPERATURE AND REL'ATIVE HUMIDITY Environmental Report FIG ~ 2'-7
| |
| | |
| MONTHLY AND ANNUAL HOURLY AVERAGES OF DRY BULB ID. B.
| |
| ) AND WET BULB IW. B. ) TEMPERATURE RELATI VE HUMI 0 I TY IR. H. ), AND TEMPERATURE OF THE DEW POINT (D. P. )
| |
| I1957-1970)
| |
| JUNE TEMP. D.B.
| |
| 70 TEMP. D,B.
| |
| yWO ~
| |
| ee W.B.
| |
| ~a
| |
| ~
| |
| W.B.' ~ Ot
| |
| ~r 50 r CI ~e
| |
| ~o 40 o~
| |
| '
| |
| D.P.
| |
| DP
| |
| ~o 30
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ,r R,H.
| |
| 10 02 04 0$ 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 02 DI 06 W 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 PST PST
| |
| ',90 '90 AUGUST
| |
| .JULY TEMP, D.B.
| |
| TEMP. D.B.
| |
| 70 60 W.B. Vl 50 50 ~1 r~ 40 O
| |
| : 0. P.
| |
| D. P. ~e ~0
| |
| ~0
| |
| '
| |
| ~P~ ~
| |
| r ~e r
| |
| R.H.
| |
| 10 10 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 20 02 04 06 08 10 12 . 14 16 18 20 22 24 16 18 22 24 PST PST WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM MONTHLY HOURLY AVERAGES OF WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO ~ 2 TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY Environmental Report FIG. 2.3-8
| |
| | |
| MONTHLY AND ANNUAL HOURLY AVERAGES OF DRY BULB (D.B. I AND WET BULB (W.B. I TEMPERATURE RELATIVE HUMIDITY (R. H. I AND TEMPERATURE OF THE DEW POINT ID. P. I
| |
| ~
| |
| (1957-1970II SEPTEMBER OCTOBER
| |
| ~++
| |
| 70 TEMP. 0.8. 70
| |
| >o ~
| |
| R.H.
| |
| 60 TEMP. 0.B.
| |
| W.B.
| |
| 50
| |
| ' W.B.
| |
| ' a 40
| |
| ~~
| |
| D.P.
| |
| '+v 0.P.
| |
| ~r R.H.
| |
| 10 10 02 Ol 06 0$ 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 02 Dl 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 PST PST NOVEMBER DECEMBER
| |
| ~~
| |
| v ~o 0 r
| |
| '
| |
| 4 \
| |
| o+ 70
| |
| ~
| |
| 'h R.H.
| |
| ~~
| |
| 60 4 P R.H.
| |
| a 50 MP. O.B. TEMP, 0,8, o 40 W.B.
| |
| W. B.
| |
| 0.P.
| |
| D.P.
| |
| 10 10 02 Di 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 02 Ol 06 R 10 LZ 14 16 18 20 ZZ 24 PST PST WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM MONTHLY HOURLY AVERAGES OF WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY Environmental Report FIG. 2.3-9
| |
| | |
| MONTHLY AND ANNUAL HOURLY AVERAGES OF DRY BULB (0.B.) AND WET BULB (W.B.) TEMPERATURE RELATIVE HUMIDITY (R. H. ), AND TEMPERATURE OF THE DEW POINT (D. P. I (1957-1970)
| |
| ANNUAL ~
| |
| 70 R.H. TEMP. (D.B.)
| |
| . CI 50
| |
| '
| |
| W.B. ~e
| |
| '
| |
| 40 0, P.
| |
| O 30 10 oz oa oe os io iz ia ie is zo zz za PST FIGHT WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM ANNUAL HOURLY AVERAGE OF WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY Environmental Report 2 '-10
| |
| | |
| XMO P NC
| |
| : l. 00 0.93 0.85 086 f ~o5 wo
| |
| .80 X 45
| |
| ~0 OOl HV .70 ct R M 0.62 Q P
| |
| .60 0.57 0.58 L/l UJ
| |
| .50 0.45 040
| |
| .40 Q.36 0.30 CQ .30 RW I
| |
| Cl M 3.'
| |
| 0 O.l9 bJWR PR .20 reI L'XL O.l4 MUM C)
| |
| OC . lo Ixj M
| |
| Q ARM en Z W d 0
| |
| bJ JAN FEB MAR APR MAY UNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC GJ I
| |
| MM OO UR
| |
| | |
| 8.0 XMO 6.0 QUlM 4.0 II f P 2.0 R RN PER IOD (YEARS)
| |
| TO USE THI S CHART, SELECT ANY DESIRED WO ~C RAINFALL INTENS ITY AND DURATION AND
| |
| ~OS 250 READ FROM THE DIAGONALLINES THE III W 1.0 EXPECTED FREQUENCY OF SUCH INTENSITY
| |
| +0 AOl HCl AND DURATION. FOR EXAMPLE, RAINFALL 0.8 INTENSITY OF 1.3 INCHES PER HOUR FOR O Q 0.6 10 MINUTES CAN BE EXPECTED TO OCCUR, M ON AVERAGE, ONCE EVERY 5 YEARS (POINT 0.4 10 A). HOWEVER, SUCH INTENSITY CAN BE EXPECTED FOR 30 MINUTES DURATION ONLY 0-I ABOUT ONCE IN 100 YEARS (POINT B ). THE vl 02 RETURN PERIOD FOR THIS INTENSI FY FOR I~ 60 MINUTES DURATION IS GREATER THAN 1000 YEARS (POINT C).
| |
| MUH O.l THERE ARE, OF COURSE, VARIATIONS IN R USE OF THE CHART. SUPPOSE, FOR Hg~
| |
| OWN 0.08 EXAMPLE, IT IS DESIRED TO FIND THE "100-YEAR STORM" FOR 60 MINUTES.
| |
| UIO V 0.06 C THIS IS 0.8 INCH (POINT. D).
| |
| ZITI H MR R 0.04
| |
| ~A R MQ ITI I
| |
| H Ql ol tzf MM R 0.02 H Q w 10 15 20 30 40 50N 2 3 4 56 8 1012 18 24 A
| |
| ~oa 8C MINUTES HOURS lV 4J ZRl MAR DURATION I
| |
| 0 bJ R
| |
| | |
| I ,I M bo 0 0 0
| |
| ~
| |
| w 0 0 Cl a Cl v
| |
| 2 D
| |
| a lo 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl O
| |
| XMO a g MC 22l, l.g M
| |
| ~ I M 21.
| |
| P MO 22
| |
| ~O 5 100 I 2 Y,pP 8 X m
| |
| Q os gc)5 QC't I ' 2 CW 90 0 OV y9 2I C
| |
| M 0
| |
| 80
| |
| ~ ~ I 2 I. ~ I I 70
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~I 'l2 ~ I I 2 I~
| |
| II ~
| |
| I ~ '>> ~
| |
| 60 ~2 ~ I H 22 R
| |
| a 50 21 40 D M
| |
| le H
| |
| A RR 3' N 0- 00 '8 O~
| |
| I OOO 0sb M
| |
| 0 0o 0 Mis+ b b Pl o 00 M 0 4 o0 Do oo O
| |
| ~
| |
| 00 hD I 0 OOO 0 0 '0 DOD Q
| |
| 000 00 o O
| |
| o 0 0.
| |
| O' OO 0
| |
| O 0 000~ 0~
| |
| l Average number of years between occurrence of a given speed and that of an equal or greater speed
| |
| : 4) H
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL 2.4 HYDROLOGY The WNP-2 site is located at an elevation of 441 ft above mean sea level (MSL) about 3 miles west of the Columbia River at River Mile 351.75 and about 8 miles northeast'f the Yakima River at Horn Rapids Dam.
| |
| The major waters that could be affected or influenced by plant oper-ation are the Columbia River and the groundwaters of the site and the immediate environs.
| |
| 2.4.1 Surf ace Water 2.4.1.1 Columbia River H drolo and Ph sical Characteristics The Columbia River and its tributaries are the dominant water systems in the Pacific Northwest region (Figure 2.4-1). The main stem of the Columbia River originates at Columbia Lake on the west slope of the Canadian Rockies and flows into the Pacific Ocean near Astoria, Oregon. The river drains a total area of approximately 258,000 square miles in Canada, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, and Nevada. The Columbia River dryiqage upstream of the site is approximately 96,000 square miles.<1) Since a large part of the Columbia River originates as runoff caused by snowmelt, high dis-charges are experienced in late spring or early summer while low di s char ges occur in wi nter.
| |
| Numerous dams and reservoirs have been constructed in the Columbia River Basin for power production, irrigation, navigation, flood control, and recreation. Table 2.4-1 lists the major Columbia River tributaries and main stem dbms with their location by river mile above the Columbia River mouth.(2> The reservoirs maintain approximately 46;7 million acre-ft of aqtjve storage of which 37.5 million acre-ft are upstream of the site.(3) Arrow and Mica Dams in Canada and Grand Coulee and John Day dams in the United States are the only main stem projects providing sufficient storage for seasonal flow regula-tion, while the remaining main stem dams are run-of-river projects providing only daily flow control. Much of the activities of flood control and hydroelectric power production are presently controjlqd under the Columbia Treaty between Canada and the United States.<4)
| |
| The Columbia River is tide-affected from the mouth to Bonneville Dam (River Mile 146). The only other free flowing stretch of the river is the 49-mile reach downstream from Priest Rapids Dam (River Mile 397) to the head (approximately River Mile 348) of the reservoir behind McNary Dam. The proposed Ben Franklin hydroelectric dam site on the 2.4-1 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL Columbia River is about four miles downstream from the WNP-2 site.
| |
| The planning studies for this project by the Corps of Engineers were suspended in 1969 and reinitiated in 1978 as part of the development of a management plan for the Hanford reach. While the Benton and Franklin County Public Utility Districts have shown a recurring interest in revitalizing the project, previous studies have disclosed significant economic and environmental impediments.
| |
| The flows in the Columbia River in the vicinity of the site are highly regulated by Priest Rapids Dam located approximately 45 river miles upstream from the site. The momentary minimum discharge of the Colum-bia River at Priest Rapids was recorded to be 4120 cfs in 1936 before the construction of Priest Rapids Dam which was built in 1956. After the construction of the dam, the daily river discharge at Priest Rapids has never been below 36,000 cfs, the minimum flow adminis-tratively set by the Federal Power Commission License. The annual average discharge measured at the River Nile 394.5 (634.8 KN) just downstream from the dam is 120,200 cfs.(1)
| |
| Monthly discharges below Priest Rapids Dam for the period 1928 th~ough 1958 adjusted for 1970 conditions are presented in Table 2.4-2.'l5 The listed flow values represent measured flows which were adjusted to reflect flow regulation by dams and diversions existing in 1970.
| |
| Discharge duration curves derived from these values are shown in Figure 2.4-2. Because of the regulation, it is estimated that the minimum and maximum mean monthly flows will be 60,000 and 260,000 cfs in the vicinity of the site. The flow in this reach varies not only due to seasonal floods but also due to daily regulation by the power-producing Priest Rapids Dam. Flows during the late summer, fall, and winter may vary from a low of 36,000 cfs to as much as 160,000 cfs during a single day.
| |
| The four largest known floods occurred in 1876, 1894, 1948 and 1956.
| |
| The 1894 flood was the maximum known flood on the Columbia River near
| |
| ,the proposed site and had an estimated discharge of 740,000 cfs. The largest recorded flood occurred in 1948 when a flow of 692,600 cfs was recorded at Hanford. The maximum possible flood (NPF) under present regulated conditions has been estimated by the U.S. Corps of Engineers to be 1,440,000 cfs at Ringold (River Nile 357).
| |
| Figure 2.4-3 shows the exceedance frequency for annual momentary peak flows below Priest Rapids Dym derived from 1913 to 1965 records ad-justed for 1970 conditions.<7) The frequency curves for both high and low flows for the period 1929-1958 adjusted for 1970 conditions are given in Figure 2.5-4. The minimum calculated 7-day average flow between 1960 and 1972 was 46,000 cfs.
| |
| : 2. 4-2 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL River cross sections have been determined for a number of flows.(8)
| |
| Cross qeptions between River Miles 351 and 352 are shown in Figure 2.4-5.I9) The river width in the vicinity of the project varies between 1200 and 1800 ft, depending on the flow. Figure 2.4-6 shows the location of the WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 intake/discharge structures and Figure 2.4-7 shows river bottom contours near the outfall. River water surface profiles for several flows in the vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 2.4-8.(10i11i12) Diurnal depth fluctuations caused by Priest Rapids Dam regulation can be as much five feet. The maximum velocities measured vary from less than three feet per. second (fps) to over ll fps, again depending on the river cross section and flow rate.
| |
| WNP-2 is at an elevation of 441 ft above MSL, which is approximately 65 ft above the water surface of the maximum recorded flood, approx-imately 50 ft above the water surface of the maximum possible flood, and approximately 22 ft above the water surface elevation estimated 14 for a Grand Coulee Dam failure.(10 11 12> The pumphouse for the WNP-2 plant water intake is at'n elevation of 375 ft above MSL, which is the approximate water surface elevation of the maximum recorded flood.
| |
| A low flow test of the Columbia River conducted on April 10, 1976 controlled the flow to 36,000 cfs for the purpose of verifying river surface elevations. Test results indicate that the river water surface elevation in the area of the WNP-2 intakes and discharge is approx-imately 341.7 ft MSL instead of the 343.0 ft MSL value determined from previously available data.
| |
| 2.4.1.2 Columbia River Tem eratures Water temperatures of the Columbia River have been recorded both above and below the site for many years.(13-18) Tables 2.4-3 and 2.4-4 present the monthly average and extreme temperatures just below Priest Rapids Dam (1961-1974) and at Richland (1965-1974), respectively. A comparison of monthly average temperatures between the two locations is shown in Figure 2.4-9.
| |
| Monthly average temperatures at the two locations range from 1.5oC (34.7oF) to 20.2oC (68.4oF), with the lowest temperatures generally occurring in February and the highest in August. Average monthly temperatures for the 10-year period (1965-1974) range from 3.3oC (37.9oF) to 18.3oC (64.9oF) below Priest Rapids Dam and from 4.2oC (39.6oF) to 19.3oC (66.7oF) at Richland, indicating a slight warming. from Priest Rapids Dam to Richland. Average daily at the two locations show a low of 0.3oC (32.5 F) and 'emperatures 2.4-3 Amendment. 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL a high of 20.2oC (68.4oF) below Priest Rapids Dam and a low of 0.2oC (32.4oF) and a high of 21.5oC (70.7oF) at Richland. A diurnal variation in water temperature of about 2.2oC (4oF) in the spring and summer, and 1.1oC (2oF) in the fall and winter, can be expected to occur as a result of diurnal reservoir discharge.var-iations from Priest Rapids Dam.
| |
| The free flowing stretch of river along the Hanford reach responds more rapidly to thermal modification from both weather and industrial inputs than impounded regions. Hence, in this stretch of river, warming in the sumner and cooling in the winter occur more rapidly.
| |
| Studies indicate that about 65K of the heat input in the Hanford reach of the river is dissipated by the time it reaches the Washington-Oregon border.(18) The temperature rise from natural heating along the Hanford stretch during August and September is about 0.5 to 0.75oC (0.9 to 1.35oF).
| |
| Upstream impoundments have influenced water temperatures by delaying the arrival of peak surmiser water temperatures, reducing supner water temperatures, and increasing winter water temperatures. (14)
| |
| ( > The change in average annual water temperatures, however, has been less than 1oC (2oF) over the past 30 years. These tr ends are shown in Figure 2.4-10 for the years 1938-1972 at Rocky Reach Dam. The river has not frozen over in the Hanford reach during, at least, the last 25 4 years.
| |
| The Columbia River has been thermally modified since 1944 by the operation of up to nine plutonium production reactors at Hanford.
| |
| This modification was quite significant since the heat additions from man-made thermal energy sources were over 23,000 MW in 1964. A portion of the heat load was added directly to the river by reactor effluents at temperatures in excess of 85oC. In addition, numerous "warm springs" were created along the plant shoreline by disposing of warm wastewater in trenches that paralleled the shore. Only one reactor, 100-N, remains in operation at present.
| |
| One-hour', 24-hour, and 7-day frequency duration curves projected for 1980 dam operations for high river water temperatures at the project site are shown in Figures 2.4-11 through 2.4-13.
| |
| 2.4-4 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2'R 2.4.1.3 Columbia River Water Qualit (7I 19/ 20)
| |
| The water quality of the Columbia River is quite good.
| |
| The Columbia River is classified as "Class A Excellent" from its mouth to Grand Coulee Dam by the Washington State Department of Ecology. This means that the water is generally satisfactory for use as water supply (domestic, industrial, agricultural), wildlife habitat, stock watering, general recreation and aesthetic enjoyment, commerce and navigation, and fish and shellfish reproduction, rearing and harvest.
| |
| Applicable water quality stye(ards and regulations imposed by the State of Washington are presented in Section 5.1 and 5.3 A summary of mean and extreme values for important water quality parameters derived from measurements taken at different periods between 1957 and 1973 at ~qlygtgg)locations in this region is presented in Table 2.4-5. ' The Columbia River shows little change in mineralization from the International Boundary at Northport, Washington (River Mile 734),
| |
| to the point of its confluence with the Snake River (River Mile 324). As it enters the United States from Canada it is a calcium bicarbonate type water with an average dissolved-solids concentration of approximately 90 mg/R (milligrams per liter). In samples collected daily at Northport since 1952, the dissolved-solids have ranged between 71-158 mg/R. The water 'is moderately hard, ranging from 50-159 mg/2, in hardness.
| |
| In the vicinity of the proposed project, the dissolved-solids have ranged between 70-154 mg/R, and the hardness between 55-85 mg/R.
| |
| Mean dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in all reaches of the Columbia River from Northport to Pasco have an average value of about 10 mg/R; the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration reported was 6.8 mg/R at Pasco. The Washington Water Quality Standards impose that no wastes be discharged into the Columbia River that cause dissolved oxygen levels to fall below 9. 5 mg/R above Grand Coulee Dam or 8.0 mg/R below Grand Coulee Dam.
| |
| The average coliform count below Priest Rapids Dam is 131/100 mR which is much less than 240/100 mR imposed by the Washington State Water Quality Standards in this area.
| |
| Turbidity in the river is very low, generally measuring less than 5 Jackson Turbidity Units (JTU). The pH is normally slightly alkaline (up to 8.6).
| |
| The passage of water over the spillways of upstream dams has caused nitrogen supersaturation in the river water. Values of dissolved nitrogen in excess of 120%, of saturation have 2.4-5 Amendment 1 Mav 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER been observed below Priest Rapids Dam and in the Hanford reach of the river. It is anticipated that increased flow regulation by new upstream dams vill decrease the amount of wate" spilled over the dam spillways, and as a consequence, decrease the nitrogen supersaturation problem.
| |
| Table 2.4-6 shows the chemical characteristics of the river water measured at 100-F Area (River Mile 374) of the Hanford Reservation.(22) A summary of water quality measurements of the river below Priest Rapids Dam (River Mile 395) for the 1972 water year is 'presented in Table 2.4-7.(22) Averages computed from these measurements are listed in Table 2.4-8.
| |
| Samples for chemical analyses of Columbia River are taken routinely at Priest Rapids Dam, at Vernita, the 300 Area, and Richland.(23) 'Several investigations studied the effect of reactor effluent on chemical quality of the water. One report(24) includes analyses of river samples taken semi-monthly at Vernita (downstream of Priest Rapids Dam but upstream from the Hanford Reservation) and within the Hanford boundaries but downstream of reactor effluent discharges.
| |
| Other than hexavalent chromium, statistical comparison of the mean sample values showed no significant differences at the 90% confidence level in any of the species.
| |
| 2.4.1.4 Hanford Effluents Fourteen liquid effluent lines from Hanford facilities dis-charge their contents directly to the Columbia River.(25)
| |
| Pertinent data for each discharge are given in Table 2.4-9, and a summary of annual amounts of the principal chemical discharges is given in Table 2.4-10.
| |
| At present, the only thermal discharges of sufficient magni-tude to affect Columbia River temperatures occur either from the 100-N Reactor or from the associated WPPSS Hanford Generating Plant (HGP) when the N Reactor is operating.
| |
| The largest heated stream arising from this operation is the cooling water from the HGP (Table 2. 4-9), which has a thermal capacity of 3780 MW (megawatts) and an electrical capacity of 860 MW. The cooling water flow rate is 940 to 1260 cfs depending on incoming river temperature, and is discharged at 15 to 20'C (27 to 36'F) above ambient river temperature.
| |
| Surveys(26) of the thermal plume created by this discharge showed a maximum measured temperature increment in the plume of 4.5'C (8.1'F) with a river flow rate of 44,000 cfs, and a maximum increment of 2.5'C (4.5'F) at 100 yards downstream at, which point, the width of the plume becomes well mixed across the river width. Directly below an island some 2.4-6
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 2.4.1.3 Columbia River Water Qualit (7, 19, 20)
| |
| The water quality of the Columbia River is quite good.
| |
| The Columbia River is classified as "Class A Excellent" from its mouth to Grand Coulee Dam by the Washington State Department. of Ecology. This means that the water is generally satisfactory for use as water supply (domestic, industrial, agricultural), wildlife habitat, stock watering, general recreation and aesthetic enjoyment, commerce and navigation, and fish and shellfish reproduction, rearing and harvest.
| |
| Applicable water quality stsp$ ards and regulations imposed by the State of Washington are presented in Section 5.1 and 5.3 A summary of mean and extreme values for important water quality parameters derived from measurements taken at different periods between 1957 and 1973 at ~qlygtg8)locations in this region is presented in Table 2.4-5. ' The Columbia River shows little change in mineralization from the International Boundary at Northport, Washington (River Mile 734),
| |
| to the point of its confluence with the Snake River (River Mile 324). As it enters the United States from Canada it is a calcium bicarbonate type water with an average dissolved-solids concentration of approximately 90 mg/R (milligrams per liter). In samples collected daily at. Northport since 1952, the dissolved-solids have ranged between 71-158 mg/R. The water is moderately hard, ranging from 50-159 mg/R in hardness.
| |
| In the vicinity of the proposed project, the dissolved-solids have ranged between 70-154, mg/R, and the hardness between 55-85 mg/R.
| |
| Mean dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in all reaches of the Columbia River from Northport to Pasco have an average value of about 10 mg/i; the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration reported was 6.8 mg/R at Pasco. The Washington Water Quality Standards impose that no wastes be discharged into the Columbia River that cause dissolved oxygen levels to fall below 9.5 mg/R above Grand Coulee Dam or 8.0 mg/R below Grand Coulee Dam.
| |
| The average coliform count. below Priest Rapids Dam is 131/100 mR which is much less than 240/100 mk imposed by the Washington State Water Quality Standards in this area.
| |
| Turbidity in the river is very low, generally measuring less than 5 Jackson Turbidity Units (JTU). The pH is normally slightly alkaline (up to 8.6).
| |
| The passage of water over the spillways of upstream dams has caused nitrogen supersaturation in the river water. Values of dissolved nitrogen in excess of 120$ of saturation have 2.4-5 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER been observed below Priest Rapids Dam and in the Hanford reach of"the river. It is anticipated that increased flow regulation by new upstream dams will decrease the amount of water spilled over the dam spillways, and as a consequence, decrease the nitrogen supersaturation problem.
| |
| Table 2.4-6 shows the chemical characteristics of the river water measure)( 27yt 100-F Area (River Mile 374) of the Hanford Reservation. A summary of water quality measurements of the river below Priest Rapids Dam (River Mily>pf) for the 1972 water year is presented in Table 2.4-7. Averages computed from these measurements are listed in Table 2.4-8.
| |
| Samples for chemical analyses of Columbia River are taken routinely at (yjyst Rapids Dam, at Vernita, the 300 Area, and Richland. Several investigations studied the effect of reaqggy effluent on chemical quality of the water. One report includes analyses of river samples taken semi-monthly at Vernita (downstream of Priest Rapids Dam but upstream from the HanforB Reservation) and within the Hanford boundaries but downstream of reactor effluent discharges.
| |
| Other than hexavalent chromium, statistical comparison of the mean sample values showed no significant differences at the 90% confidence level in any of the species.
| |
| 2.4.1.4 Hanford Effluents Fourteen liquid effluent lines from Hanford facilities(2 gis-charge their contents directly to the Columbia River.
| |
| )
| |
| Pertinent data on quantities and contituents for each discharge are given in Table 2.4-.9, and a summary of annual amounts of the principal chemical discharges is given in Table 2.4-10.
| |
| At present, the only thermal discharges of sufficient magni-tude to affect Columbia River temperatures occur either from the 100-N Reactor or from the associated WPPSS Hanford Generating Plant (HGP) when the N Reactor is operating.
| |
| The largest heated stream arising from this operation is the cooling water from the HGP (River Mile 380), which has a thermal capacity of 3780 MW (megawatts) and an electrical capacity of 860 MW. The cooling water flow rate is 940is to 1260 cfs depending on incoming river temperature, and discharged at 19 to 24'C (35 to 43'F) above ambient river temperature (Table 2. 4-9) . The calculated temperature increment for complete mixing (about 2>/2 miles downstream) at the minimum river flow rate of 36,000 cfs would be 0.6'C (1.1'F).
| |
| During operation, N Reactor, immediately downstream from HGP, discharges a cooling water stream of about 140 cfs, with a temperature up +o 16 C (28.8'F) above ambient river tem-perature, to the river. This discharge increases the river 2.4-6 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER temperature by only 0.14'C (0.25'F) at the minimum river flow rate of 36,000 cfs and 0.0(2C)(0.08'F) at the average river flow rate of 120,000 cfs.
| |
| Chemicals are released to the Columbia River at three loca-tions: 1)(2$ )e 100-N Area, 2) the 100-K Area, and 3) the to 300 Area. The primary source of chemicals released the river is the 100-N Reactor operation. The quantities of chemicals released are shown in Table 2.4-10. In addition to these chemicals, impurities removed from the river water by the treatment plants also are returned to the river. The intermittent filter backwash contains suspended accumulation solids, principally an aluminum hydroxide floe, plus an of suspended solids removed from the raw river water during the filtration process. Several of the smaller effluent streams, consisting largely of treated water, may contain free chlorine at concentrations up to a maximum of 1 mg/i.
| |
| Other chemical concentrations in treated water are mostly the result of use of alum (aluminum sulfate) and small quantities of polyacrylamide filter aids in the water filtration plant.
| |
| While the production reactors which were cooled directly with river water have been shutdown, the Hanford reservation still has several sources of low level radioactive effluents.
| |
| These include cooling water at 100-N, animal farm waste at 100-F and 300 Areas, and trituim migrating to(Qy river with groundwater from the 200 Area disposal sites.
| |
| 2.4.2 Groundwater The Hanford Reservation is underlain by three principal rock types, from top to bottom: 1) unconsolidated silts, sands, and gravels; 2) semiconsolidated lake and stream sediments (Ringold formation); and 3) doggy, hard basalt which forms the bedrock beneath the area. The lithologic character and water bearing properties of the several geologic units occurring in the Hanford area are summarized in Table 2.4-11.
| |
| In general, groundwater in the superficial sediments occurs under unconfined conditions, while water in the basalt bedrock occurs mainly under confined conditions. In some areas the lower zone of the Ringold formation is a confined aquifer, separated from the unconfined aquifer by thick clay 2 . 5-14 beds, and possesses a distinct hydraulic potential. Figure shows a simplified geological cross section of the Hanford Reservation. Wells 699-9-E2, 699-10-E12, 699-14-E6, shown in this figure are located in the vicinity of the project site.
| |
| The Ellensburg Formation (beds between basalt flows) and Ringold Formation beds are flood-plain and shallow lake deposits. The glacio-fluvial sediments are largely the result of several catastrophic floods. These sediments
| |
| : 2. 4<<7 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER (actually Pasco Gravels) are about 100 times as permeable as the Ringold Formation gravels, both of which exist at the plant site. The average field permeabilities, determined by a variety of'ethods, for the Ringold Formation gravel, the glaciofluvial sediments (Pasco Gravels) and mixes of the two are given in Table 2.4-12. The values were obtained on ma-terials comparable to those at the FFTF and WNP-2 sites and, of course, are appreciably higher than at sites where the Touchet Silts and Ringold Silts and clays predominate. The median specific yield or available porosity is estimated to range between 4.8 to 11% and the average effective porosity is about 9%.
| |
| From 1944 through 1972, the Hanford chemical processing plants gischarged to the ground over 130 billion gallons (4 x 10 acre-ft) of wastewater and cooling water with a profound effect on the regional water table. Figure 2.4-15 shows the unconfined water table contours over the area interpreted from measurements in September 1973. It also indicates the locations of wells. As shown in this figure, the impermeable aquifer boundaries are the Rattlesnake Hills, Yakima Ridge, and Umtanum Ridge on the west. and southwest sides of the Reservation. Gable Mountain and Gable Butte also impede the groundwater flow.
| |
| The current estimate of the, maximum saturated thickness of the unconfined aquifer is about 230 ft. In the vicinity of the project site this thickness is approximately 100 ft to 160 ft. The depth to the water table varies greatly from place to place depending chiefly on local topography, rang-ing from less than one to more than 300 ft below the land surface. The ground surface is about 60 to 70 ft above the water table at the WNP-2 Site.
| |
| The groundwater flows to the Columbia River in a direction perpendicular to the contour lines shown in Figure 2.4-15.
| |
| Groundwater flow near the river up to 3 miles jg$ ynd is affected by seasonal river stage fluctuations.
| |
| : 2. 4-8 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 4 The natural recharge due to precipitation over the low lands of the Hanford Reservation is not measurable. The major artificial recharge of groundwater to the unconfined aquifer occurs near the 200 East and 200 West Areas. As is clearly shown in Figure 2.4-15, the large volumes of process water disposed to ponas at this site have causea the formation of significant mounds in the water table.
| |
| Upon reaching the water table, chemical and radioactive contaminants from the 200 Area disposal sites are convected in the direction of groundwater movement. Nitrate (NO3)(>9ag8) tritium ( H) ions had reached the project site in 1972.
| |
| Hyggver, the plume of gross beta .emitters calculated as
| |
| ( Ru) does not reach the site at(Qy present time and is not likely to do so in the future.
| |
| East of the Columbia River is a very intensive 500,000 acre irrigated farming area (Columbia Basin Project area). The water table in that region is 40 to 60 ft higher than the river elevation. The water table in the region be$ ggyn Eltopia and Pasco has risen 40 to 60 ft since 1960 due to an increase in irrigation in the area. Although no specific studies have been conducted, it is apparent from the water table elevations .that the flow of water is into the Columbia River. Xt is believed that there is a hydrau-lic connection between the unconfined aquifers under the Hanford Reservation and under the Columbia Basin project area. Groundwater east of the Columbia River may be contamin atea by the agricultural activities. However, the Columbia River acts as a discharge boundary for the unconfined aquifers.
| |
| An underground disposal site for radioactive wastes is located immediately adjacent to the northwest corner of the WNP-2 site (Figure 2.1-3). The disposal site covers an area of 8.6 acres and was used between 1962 and 1967 to dispose of a broad spectrum of low- to high-level~gy)ioactive wastes, primarily fission products and plutonium. Cartoned low-level waste was buried in trenches, and medium to high-level waste was buried in caissons or pipe facilities. The buried wastes are approximately 45 ft above the water table.
| |
| The points of groundwater withdrawal in the vicinity of the WNP-2 site are shown in Figure 2.4-16. Two on-site wells draw from the unconfined aquifer in the Ringold formation and a third well penetrates the confined aquifer in the underlying basalt flows. During construction these wells supply potable/
| |
| sanitary water requirements and provide water to support construction activities (concrete, dust control, pipe flushing, fire suppression, etc.). Well water consumption for these purposes is not expected to exceed 10,000 gpd for the balance of construction. For tne operating phase, the wells will provide potable and service water to the plant auring outages.
| |
| The design is for a peak requirement of 250 gpm although average usage should be less than 20 gpm. When the plant 's operating,- 'normal water supply will be from the river and the wells will serve as a stand-by supply for service and supplemental fire protection.
| |
| : 2. 4-9 Amendment 3 January 1979
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.4-1 COLUNBEA RIVER MILE INDEX Descri tion River Mile River Mouth 0.0 Bonneville Dam 146.1 The Dalles Dam 191.5 John Day Dam 215.6 McNary Dam 292.0'24.2 Snake River Yakima River 335.2 WNP-2 Intake and Dischar e 351.75 Proposed WNP-1 and 4 intake and Discharge 351.85 Existing Hanford Generating Plan" 380.0 Priest Rapids Dam 397.1 Wanapum Dam 415.8 Rock island Dam 453.4 Wenatchee River 468.4 Rocky Reach Dam 473.7 Chelan River 503.3 Wells Dam 515.6 Chief Joseph Dam 545.1 Grand Coulee Dam 597.6 Spokane River 638.9 United States-Canadian Boundary 745.0
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.4-2 MEAN DISCHARGES IN CFS, OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER BELOW PRIEST RAPIDS DAM, WA 1970 Conditions t:acer Tear Occ. Ltne. Dec. Jan. Nav June ~Jul ~Au - Se t. Annual 1928 224000 109900 90900 1929 82300 76400 101100 103000 108000 72600 85200 62000 71300 87600 97000 94300 86900 1930 $ 7900 89800 102700 93500 90700 83100 12500 81700 90200 93800 97600 92700 90100 L931 $ 6doo 89600 100000 82200 90800 SSCOO 74SOO 81700 104000 102200 99400 85900 90>>00 1932 $ 7%00 88100 102000 95000 109200 77800 90700 157500 156700 74600 91900 90600 102300 1933 $ 9doo 69700 102700 126800 167100 97900 118900 185900 196600 180300 121900 100200 130000 1934 100600 104200 128000 139600 203400 196 700 243100 221200 168800 104500 100000 101000 150900 1935 62000 72400 109200 132100 132000 111300 117600 147500 156900 131!00 99300 o6900 115700 1935 90200 86200 107900 119>>00 79800 80400 81500 160500 123300 83400 93200'02SOO 89'00 99600 1937 6 7600 67500 105400 96600 100600 84COO 63500 70>>00 76900 87800 91500 81900 1939 $ 9300 83100 88700 111000 124100 86800 110700 142400 146800 154100 90>>00 89200 109700 1'939 $ 3400 17100 91700 1'27200 90400 83000 108500 100000 112400 95500 96 900 90900 96400 19' 85800 85400 90500 133200 98000 89200 110700 89700 101700 94100 96000 91600 97200 19>>l $ 4300 19600 92500 99400 92200 81900 137400 76900 73200 84000 91500 88100 90600 19>>2 96000 82700 91400 114100 119000 84600 115900 105300 148400 101400 102000 88300 10>>100 19>>3 87900 65800 86800 10$ 600 1$ 0600 116000 132400 202600 134300 147700 101300 89900 1'L8300 19C4 81300 77200 96800 99300 110600 78700 8S200 88000 69100 81200 94600 84400 87400 1945 90100 90900 103600 88500 94000 86500 77800 112800 67800 88800 99300 87400 - 90600 1946 86200 85700 92500 95600 117 100 90600 112200 178100 170900 134SOO 9>>COO 91100 112500 1947 79doo 81300 93100 116000 137800 135200 155900 LSC400 163400 136300 89900 85500. 121500 19>>9 94100 96000 113900 113200 202800 166700 137700 193400 257600 194700 122900 LO190O 1496OO 19' SSOOO 83600 97700 126000 114000 80000 123000 166COO 181600 82 700 92200 87800 110200 1950 19000 69500 106600 123300 155200 145400 136 COO 197500 200200 211900 llCSOO 96200 136COO 1951 91800 87900 102600 115'00 223400 ledloo 195600 188800 171300 174300 LL0303 91700 144900 1952 94200 98800 112200 126500 155200 113300 1346OO 172400 )35800 145100 esloo 85900 121900 l 953 85500 83900 103900 95500 124800 87800 98700 174000 168300 141400 99000 89200 112700 19$ >> 83600 69800 110300 122 100 153600 13S200 124200 191200 224900 228COO 163600 114400 14 5100 1955 98700 103400 126600 132400 143900 102700 110500 104300 161800 193300 111900 91OOO 12$ OOO 19S6 95700 94500 97000 108100 206500 200600 173500 245800 212600 2 00400 103600 90700 152400
| |
| !9$ 7 87400 8'2900 109400 132100 145100 101200 113600 182700 176500 120900 89000 86900 119000 1959
| |
| ..ean ll 00 75'200 d3300 120200 123700 107300 125000 172800 172900 lt 7200 102400 sleoo e41oo 1ol 7oo 1132oo 1321oo 109600 119000 L47900 132800 9!800 11>>100
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 TABLE 2. 4-3 MONTHLY AVERAGE WATER TEMPERATURE I IN C, AT PRIEST RAPIDS DAM, WA (>)
| |
| Year 1961 Jan 5.4 Fe 4.7 Mar 4.7
| |
| ~Ar 7.4 M~a 10.4 Jun 13.7 Month Ju 17.3 AucC
| |
| : 18. 9 17.8 14.9 10.4 D
| |
| 6.6 A~
| |
| Annual 11.0 1962 4 ~ 1 3.6 3.6 6.5 10.0 13.7 16.1 17. 4 17.1 14.8 11.9 8.9 10.6 1963 5.3 3.8 4.6 6.5 10. 4 14.0 16.6 18.4 18. 3 16. 3 11. 9 7.7 11.2 1964 5.5 4.6 4.7 7.2 9.7 12.8 15.3 17. 1 16.3 14.6 10.8 6.3 10.4 1965 4.4 3.3 4.1 6.6 10. 0 13. 3 16.1 18.4 17.3 15.3 11.9 7.8 10.7 1966 4.8 4.1 4.5 7.8 10.6 12.4 15.3 17.5 17.5 14.6 11.6 8.4 10.8 1967 5.9 5.7 5.0 6.8 10.1 13.3 16.1 18.5 18.2 15.4 11.3 7.2 11.1 1968 ~ 4.6 3.3 4.6 7.1 11.1 13.4 16.1 17.5 17.2 14.2 '0.9 6.8 10.6 1969 2.4 1.5 3.4 7~2 10.8 14.6 17.1 18.2 17.7 14.8 11.5 7.6 10.6 1970 4.3 4.1 4.8 6~8 10.9 14.8 18.0 19.2 17.5 15.2 10.6 6.2 11.0 1971 4.0 3.5 3.6 6.6 10.7 12.6 15.3 18.4 17.2 15.2 11.3 6.8 10.4 1972 3.6 1.9 4.0 7~2 10.6 12.9 15.2 17.3 16.8 15.4 11.3 7.3 10.3 1973 2.3 2.9 4.8 7.7 12.5 15.4 17.6 18.8 17.8 15.2 10.3 7. 7 11.1 1974 4.0 3.0 4.9 F 7 10.8 13.6 17.2 18.7 18.4 15.5 11.8 8.6 11.2 Average 10.8 1965-74 4.0 3.3 4.4 7.2 10.8 13.6 16.4 18.3 17.6 15.1 11.3 7.4 Minimum Daily 0.3 0.3 2.2 4.3 7.5 10.6 13.1 16.6 15.3 12.2 7.7 2 '
| |
| Maximum Daily 7.6'.2 6.9 10.1 14.6 17. 1 19. 3 20. 2 20. 0 18. 7 14. 4 10. 5 measurement errors and missing data.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.4-4 MONTHLY AVERAGE WATER TEMPERATURE, IN C, AT RICHLAND, WA~cl)
| |
| Year 1963 Jan 6.1 Fc Md 6.3 r'.4 A~r 9.1 M~a 11.0 Jun 14.2 Month Ju
| |
| : 17. 3 Aucu
| |
| : 19. 8
| |
| ~Sc 18.5 Oct 16.4 Nov 12.6 Dec 8.4 A~
| |
| Annual 12.1 1966 5. 9 6.2 6.8 10.3 12.1 13.5 16.2 18.8 19.4 15.6 12.6 9~5 12.2 1967 7.4 7.0 6.6 8.8 12.0 13.9 17.0 20.2 19.4 16.1 12.0 7.8 12.4 1968 5.7 5.0 6.0 8.8 12.8 14.3 17.0 18.7 18.3 15.0 11.4 7.4 11.7 1969 2.7 1.9 4.3 8.0 11.4 15.3 17.9 19.3 18.6 15.2 11.7 7.0 11.1 1970 5 ' 4.9 5.7 7.9 11.7 15.4 19.0 19.9 17.5 14 ' 10.6 5.9 11.6 1971 4.2 3.4 3.8 7.0 11.1 12.9 16.4 19.5 17.8 15.0 10.7 6.2 10.7 1972 3.3 2.2 3.7 7.0 11.0 '3.3 15.5 18.1 16.9 14.0 10. 5 6.,'1 10.1 1973 3.2 3.0 4.7 7.8 12.9 15.6 18.3 19.6 18.3 15.0 9.9 7.6 11.3 1974 3.2 3.2 5. 2 8.2 11.3 13.7 17.4 19.4 18.8 15.4 11.5 7.9 11.3 Avcragc 4.2 5,3 8.3 11.7 14.2 17.2 19.3 18.4 15.3 11 F 4 7.4 11.4 1965-74 Minimum 0.7 2.4 5.1 8.6 11.2 14.2 17.3 14.6 11.1 7.7 2.4 Daily Maximum 8.3 8.6 12.8 15.0 17.7 20.4 21.5 21.1 18.5 15 ~ 9 11 ~ 3 Daily a Rccor s s ncc Junc 1964.
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.4-5
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF WATER QUALITY DATA FOR THE COLUMBIA RIVER AT SELECTED SITES Coliform Color Ortho D.P. T MPN/ PT-CO Hard. Turbidity PO4-P NO3-N (mc(/1) ('C) 100 mt. pH Units ~(m /1) (JTU) (mc(/1) (mc(/1)
| |
| Northport, WA (River Mile 734)
| |
| Mean 11.5 9 8 385 7 6 4 78 17 0.05 0.05 Minimum 10.2 0.0 36 6.6 0 50 0 0.00 0.00 Maximum 14.3 21.0 ,2,000 8.5 30 159 32 0.18 0.40 Wenatchee, WA
| |
| -(River Mile 471)
| |
| Mean 11.8 11. 0 310 8.0 5 66 4 0.03 0.07 Minimum 8.0 2.5 2 0 50 0 0.01 0.00 Maximum 15.5 21.6 7,300 6 9 8.6 25 112 25 0.04 0 '4 Columbia River below Rock Island Dam (River Mile 451)
| |
| Mean .12. 3 10. 6 691 7. 8 8 82 4 ~
| |
| : 0. 10 Minimum 93 15 10 6~4 3 55 1 0.00 0.01 Maximum 15.9 19.6 8,000 8.4 30 132 32 0.07 0.73 Columbia River below Priest Rapids Dam (River Mile 395)
| |
| Mean 11.9 11.4 131 7.7 5- 69 3 0. 08 0. 10 Minimum 9.5 1.8 0 6 5 0 55 0 0.01 0.02 Maximum 15.9 19.2 2,000 8.5 33 81 29 0.15 1.50 Columbia River, Pasco, WA (River Mile 330)
| |
| Mean 10.8 12.2 182 8.1 8 73 15 0.1 0.19 Minimum 6.8 3.0 1 6 8 0 40 0 0.01 0 F 05 Maximum 14.3 22.0 4,800 8.6 68 90 140 0.02 0.37
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2. 4-6 CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF COLUMBIA RIVER WATER AT 100 F--1970 (RESULTS IN PARTS/MILLION)
| |
| Diss Phth MO Hard-McC SO 4
| |
| PO CI 0 2- Alk Alk ness Solids 1/6 6.0 0.03 0. 002 20. 15. 0.00 0.33 2.0 68. 74. 93.
| |
| 1/20 4.0 0.01 0. 004 22. 15. 0.05 0.36 7.8 2.0 71. 73. 84.
| |
| 2/3 5.0 0.01 0. 002 21. 13. 0. 06 0. 33 12. 2.0 69. 72. 100 2/17 5.0 0.01 0.004 22. 19. 0.01 0.33 11. 2.0 68. 75. 100 3/3 5.4 0.02 0.002 22. 17. 0.04 0.26 8.3 1.0 65. 76. 96.
| |
| 3/17 6.2 0.03 0. 004 19. 17. 0. 02 0. 50 13. 1.0 65. 73. 81.
| |
| 3/31 6.2 0.07 0. 005 20. 17. 0. 02 0. 39 12. 2.0 69. 76. 81.
| |
| 4/14 4.4 0.22 0.002 24. 20. 0.05 0.60 12. 1.0 66. 77. 100 4/28 6.3 0.12 0.005 22. 24. 0.02 0.56 12. 1.0 70. 82. 120 5/12 5.5 0.02 0.02 25. 23. 0.005 0.40 12. 2.0 72. 85. 100 6/16 4 ' 0.00 0.01 22. 13. 0. 04 0. 29 11. 2.0 56. 68. 74.
| |
| 7/21 4.2 0.09 0.007 23. 15. 0.02 0.16 9.6 1.0 61. 76. 75.
| |
| 8/4 3.9 0. 02 0.007 25. 17. 0.02 0.46 9.6 .1.0 70. 78. 86.
| |
| 8/18 4.0 0.03 0.004 24. 13. 0.02 0.26 8.9 1.0 70; 77. 110 9/8 4.8 0.03 0.005 23. 15. 0.08 0.43 9.0 3.0 70. 77. 73.
| |
| 9/22 5.3 0.02 0. 002 17. 13. 0.03 0.26 9.4 2.0 63. 65. 87.
| |
| 10/6 4.0 0.03 0.003 21. 20 0.02 0.66 8. 2 2.0 66. 70. 99.
| |
| 10/20 5.4 0.02 0. 006 16 ~ 12. 0. 01 0. 32 11. 0.0 92. 66 80.
| |
| 11/3 5.3 0.01 0.001 19. 18. 0.11 ,0.49 NA 2' 70. 68. 80.
| |
| 11/16 4.9 0.02 0.003 20. 15. 0.11 0.58 9.8 6.0 69. 70. 86.
| |
| 12/1 12/15 Annual Average 3.8 6.6 5 p 0.01 0.01 p p4 0.002 0.000 0.006 20.
| |
| 18.
| |
| 22
| |
| '6.
| |
| 16.
| |
| 16.
| |
| 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.46 0.53 0.40 10.
| |
| NA NA 2.0 2.0 1.8 66.
| |
| 76.
| |
| 68
| |
| '3. 65.
| |
| 74.
| |
| 92.
| |
| 97.
| |
| 90.
| |
| NA indicates there was no analysis made. Analysis was made from sing grab samples.
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.4-7a
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF WATER QUALITY ANALYSES OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER BELOW PRIEST RAPIDS DAM (RIVER MILE 395) FOR 1972 WATER YEAR TDTAI.
| |
| DISSOLVED DISSOLVED DISSOLVED DISSOLVED ALKALINITY DISSOLVED DISSOLVEO KJELDAHL INSTANTANEOUS CALCIUM MAGNESIUM SODIUM POTASSIUM SICARSONATE AS SUlfATE CHLORIDE NITROGEN DISCHARGE (CII (M9I (NSI (KI (HC03( CSC03 (504( (CD (NI TIME (CFSI QSGIU . IMGJU (MGIU (MG(U (MGJU (MGIU (MGIU (MGIU (MGIU DATE OCTO SER ll 1630 IDS(TO 19 4.2 K2 LO 74 el IZ 1 s aIZ 4.2 24 Xl 13 60 13 2,0 (L13 N NID 01((XI 10 NOVDISER 08 NIO IOI(m 10 IA 2.3 Ll N el u ar acs 4.0 2.1 Ls 72 59 11 ZD 0.79 LS LKO ID(QXI 19 DECOISER D 1515 21 4.1 2.0 ar re e? ls LO a02 27 TNO 20 4.S - ?.1 Ll 75 62 13 L9 als JAMJARY 24 1350 21 4.9 2.3 es
| |
| - 14 xl 0.12 FESRUARY 07 195 I07(xo 22 4.8
| |
| "
| |
| ?.0 a& 78 6! 14 Ll a OS 21 D50 135m 21 4.7 ~ ZI Ll 82 67: 14 L8 0,13 JAARCH
| |
| ' 1410 17?m 21 4.9 2.1 LZ ~ LZ (130 27 N30 DI(TO 21 4.9 ZI LO L2 0.31 APRII.
| |
| 10 N(0 ZISm 20 4,8 3.0 0.0 63 16 a6 ((14 24 D25 13QXI 21 4.0 Z,4 L4 66 xs (L19 NlAY 08 NZS Irs(XO 4.0 2.5 1.0 16 62 15 0,6 al0
| |
| - 0,9 a30 22 TNO 3Nm 4.4 2.1 0.7 68 56 14 JUNE xe LI a0 6( 52 0.5 LS 0,93 12 NID 16 26 N35 ll 3.7 LS (18 65 53 9.8 0,1 0.37 JULY 10 14(0 241m 0 3.6 ar Ie 16 LO 0,84 18 3.8 0.8 52 &,6 LO 0.16 24 1530 107(XO AUGUST 07 1%0 IIKOO 18 Le O.l es 53 9.6 a3 0.24 21 1440 (44m 18 Lr 0,7 or 55 9.5 a0 070 SEPTEMBER ll 1410 131mO 19 ZI G.l sl 9.8 L3 O. Il 25 1510 020(O 18 L9 0.0 51 II 0.6 0 13
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.4-7b (sheet 2 of 3)
| |
| D ISSDLVEO OISSOLVEO DISSOLVED AMMONIA DISSOLVED ORTHO TOTAL SOLIDS NITRITE NITROGEN NITRATE PHOSPHORUS PHOSPHORUS (RESIDUE HARDNESS NONCARBONATE SPEC(f(C UD 00 (NI (P) (PI AT IBBOCI (Ca MB( HARDNESS CONDUCTANCE PH DATE (MGRJ UAGIU (MGIU (MGIIJ (MGILI (MGILI UAGIU (MGJIJ (MICROMHOSI (UN(ISI OCTOBER ll (Lm QOS Qll 0.01D 65 7.8 18 a(m ao6 ao7 QDID 65 7.8-NOVEMBER 08 Q(03 Qol 0,16 0020 0030 145 7.7 15 Qolo 0.21 Q31 0020 amo 88 145 7.8 DECEMBER 0 QDID aol a?0 QDID 151 7.4 27 Qolo Q(O (L?5 0,020 348 7.6 JANUARY 24 a(ED am a4s amo fEBRUARY 07 QOTD Qol (L(H O.m Te 75 11 171 7.6 21 a(m aos ale amo 112 n 5 165 7.8 MARCH 0 0010 (105 Q32 QOXI Q 060 152 73 P.S 27 aolo ao7 T.s aolo ao70 136 73 APRIL 10 Qolo (103 QI4 (Lo?0 154 156 8,0 24 aolo aos am QDID Hl 159 ao MAY 08 Qm Q05 QO4 IL010 8 164 ao n acm a os ao7 aolo 10 370 7.8 JUNE 12 Qolo (130 LI a(XO Qo(0 134 55 128 7.6 26 a(OI Qos 0.10 Qolo 0.030 112 58 134 7.7 JULY 10 a(03 ale als aolo QOTO 112 ll 150 7.6 24 aolo ao? an amo (1020 70 8 135 8.1 AUGUST 07 aolo ao( aoe ao(0 ao?0 104 21 Qolo Q24 Qlo 0.010 Q020 I(H 7.9 SEPTEMBER ll Q(m 0 0l Q 10 a(EO 0.010 63 140 a?
| |
| 25 aolo 3m a31 aolo Q030 62 IYI 8.5
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.4-7c (sheet 3 of 3)
| |
| COlOR IMMEDIATE OISSOLVEO OISSDLVEO DISSOLVED TOTAL DISSOLVED IP (ATI NUM DISSOLVED COLIFORM CHR(BIIIUM COPPER LEAD MERCURY ZINC TEMPERATURE COBALT TURBIDIIY OXYGEN (COL. PER (Cr( ICu) (PBI U49( (Z(0 OAIE (DEG CI UNITSI (JTUI (MGIU lEIMU (UG(U (UGIU (UG/LI iUGIU LUG(0 OCTOBER ll 17.9 9.9 ~ UN IB 15.1 2 ., Lao 2xo 0,1 NOVEMBER 08 1(LS 12 ,2 15 1LT 5 2 DECEMBER D L? 2 1L7 SD Q3 27 .5.2 1 RS JAWARY 28 2 IL2 1 2 .LI FEBRUARY 07 LB 2 EL$ 30 3 (LS 21- Ld LO IL6 3 (LB MARCH D 4.7 12 LL4 40 Q3 27 RI 21 7 K9 4$ 9 Ql APRIL ID '7.8 M.4 2M 8 O,d
| |
| " 02 24 , IQO 3 lL3 NTI 3 MAY 08 9.4 LL3 (30 0 5 ao ILT 9 LL8 ¹Xl 0 5 (L3 JUNE 12 13.1 33 29 IL0 400 0 To 5.3 26 I'k6 16 5 RB ?00 0 a7 JULY ID 152 18 RO 4(0 0 5 0,2 24 17.5 12 ILd (3(O 0 5 QB AUGUST 07 19.2
| |
| -
| |
| 2 IL3 110 2. 01 10 21 UL9 2 IL0 120 2 ad 30 SEPTEMBER 11 18.7 1 10.1 400 2 4 L3 0 25 14.8 1 ILO '20 10 1 25
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.4-8 AVERAGE CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER AT PRIEST RAPIDS DAM, OCTOBER 1971 TO SEPTEMBER 1972 Chemical Concentration Calcium 19. (mg/R)
| |
| Magnesium 4. 3 (mg/R)
| |
| Sodium 2. 1 (mg/R)
| |
| Potassium 1. 4 (mg/R)
| |
| Chromium 0 Copper 2. 6 (pg/R)
| |
| Lead 8. 0 (pg/R)
| |
| Total Mecury 0. 9 (pg/R)
| |
| Zinc 32. 0 (pg/R)
| |
| Bicarbonate 72. (mg/R)
| |
| Sulfate 13. (mg/R')
| |
| Chloride l. 5 (mg/R)
| |
| Kjeldahl Nitrogen . 29 (mg/I)
| |
| Ammonia Nitrogen . 07 (mg/E)
| |
| Nitrite Nitrogen . 006 (mg/R)
| |
| Nitrate Nitrogen .26 (mg/R)
| |
| Ortho-Phosphorus .013 (mg/a)
| |
| Total Phosphorus .037 (mg/R)
| |
| Total Alkalinity 59. (mg/R)
| |
| Hardness 66. (mg/R)
| |
| Noncarbonate Hardness 06. 8 (mg/R)
| |
| Specific Conductance 158. (micro-mhos) pH 7.8 (units)
| |
| Dissolved Solids 107. 'mg/R)
| |
| Color 15. (platinum cobalt units)
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.4-9 DISCHARGE LINES TO COLUMBIA RIVER FROM HANFORD RESERVATION Are4 Dischar ~ Lines Dischar ~ Rates cfs Vse Other Potential water lit tftects 100 BIC 12-in. steel pipe 6. 000 gallons Backtlush punp inlet screens Anb(ent None - untreated rav river vater 100-0/C I2-ln. steel p)Pe 1.2 Drains and tilter backvash 2.0'C, above Total Sot(di, Turbidity, Alon(nun, Sulfate,
| |
| ~ bow anbient Chloride 5,000 gallons Backtlush punp inlet screens Anb(ent None - untreated river water 100 Ke and KN 3 tines 4 ye4r 300-Xe Tvo SI-in. steel pipes Drains, overtlov and cooling vater 2 O'C abow Total Solids, Turbidity, Alusinun, Sulfate, and KN for conpressors and punps anbient Chloride, Chlorine (0.2S sxl/tl 15,000 gallons Backf lush pusp inlet screens Anbient None - untreated river vater 100 N 3 tines a day 3- by I-ft concrete chute Overflov fran filtered vater and 11 to 20'C Total Solids, Asnon( ~ (as vali as radio-100 N raw vater storage tanks, conden- above anbient active vesta) Chlorine (O.OS ng/1) Turbidity sate tron bed(un pressure stean systea>> filter backvash 100 N 42-in. steel pipe 0. 01 ylltered vater overflbv, and vesta Iabove to O'C Sulfate, Chloride, Chlorine (O.OS ng/tl tron tloor drains 4nbient 100 N
| |
| >>
| |
| 66-in. pipe to 12-ft concrete 1IO Turbine condenser cooling vater 16'C above Aluninun, Turbidity tlune on riverbank and graphite heat exchanger cool- ~ nbient ing vater 100-N 102-in. steel pipe 300 (extrenes lto and Stean condenser cooling vater S.S>>C above Turbidity, Annonia, Sultate, tron. Sod(un.
| |
| Ilo cfs) ann(ant (occasionally 0.3 ng/t orthophosphatel.
| |
| Chlorine - 2 to Io ppb NPPSS 132 in. steel pipe ')IO vhen river <25>>C Stean condenser cooling water 1S to 20>>C (Sane 44 4bove) 1260 vhen riwr>>2S'c ~ bove anbient 100-D.'DR 12-in. steel pipe 6.000 gallons Backf lush punp inlet screens Ann(ant None - untreated river vater once 4 sooth once a nonth 100-D/DR Two I1-in. steel pipes I. ~ (2.2 to 22) tilter backvash and process coolant and vash) water, hydrau-2.0'C above anbient Total Solids, Turbidity, A)un(nun, Sulfate, Choride, Chlorine (0.1I ng/I) lic test loop vaterl (naxinun 2.2 ng/t) 300 1I-in. concrete pipe tern) 2 2 (4verags) 6 to 12/day tilter backvash (fron vater treat- Anb(ent Total Solids, Turbidity, Alon(nun, Sulfate, (a proprietary polyacrylanide sating as ~ 30-in. half-round batches of nsnt plant) Separon corregated natal pipe 12,000 gallons filter a(d) Chlorine (O.S ng/I) 300 36 in. steel pipe 0 ~ 01 Air conditioner cooling vater and 25>>C above Alon)nun, Sulfate. Chlorine (>>0.5 ng/tl tloor drains ann(eat 300 12-in. steel pips 1.1 (0 ~ OI to 2.3) Drainage tron root and parking 2 to 3'C Total Solids. Turbidity. Organic nitrogen lot. tanks for aquatic organ(ass ~ bove anb(ent
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.4-10 TOTAL ANNUAL DIRECT CHEMICAL DISCHARGE FROM HANFORD RESERVATION TO COLUMBIA RIVER Quantity from All Facilities Materials (tons)
| |
| Aluminum Sulfate 260 Chlorine 20 Polyacrylamide 0.8 Salt (rock) 22 Sodium Dichromate Sulfuric Acid 650 Ammonium Hydroxide 60 Hydrazine Morpholine l.5 Sodium Hydroxide 230
| |
| | |
| TABLE 2.4-11 MAJOR GEOLOGIC UNITS IN THE HANFORD RESERVATION AREA AND THEIR WATER BEARING PROPERTIES
| |
| ~Sstam Series Geolo ic Unit Material Water-Bearin Pro erties Fluviatile and glacio- Sands and gravels occur- Where below the water table, such deposits fluviatile sediments ing chiefly as glacial have very high permeability and are capable and the Touchet forma- outwash. Unconsolidated, of storing vast amounts of water. Highest tion. tending toward coarse- permeability value determined was ness and angularity of 12,000 ft/day.
| |
| (0-200 ft thick) grains, essentially free of fines.
| |
| Pleistocene Palouse soil Wind deposited silt. Occurs everywhere above the water table.
| |
| (0-40 ft thick)
| |
| Quaternary Ringold formation Well-bedded lacustrine Has relatively low permeability; values silts and sands and range from'1 to 200 ft/day. Storage capa-(200-1,200 ft thick) local beds of clay and gravel. Poorly sorted, city correspondingly !low. In very minor part, a few beds of gravel and sand are locally semi-consolidat- sufficiently clean that permeability is ed or cemented. Gener- moderately large; on the other hand, some ally divided into the beds of silty clay or clay are essentially lower "blue clay" por- impermeable.
| |
| tion which contains con-siderable sand and gravel, the middle con-glomerate portion, and the upper silts and fine sand portion.
| |
| Miocene and Columbia River basalt Basaltic lavas with Rocks are generally dense except for numer-Pliocene series. interbedded sedimentary ous shrinkage cracks, interflow scoria zones, rocks, considerably de- and interbedded sediments. Permeability of
| |
| (>10,000 ft thick) formed. Underlie the unconsolidated sedi-rocks is small (e.g., 0.002 to 9 ft/day) but transmissivity of a thick section may be con-ments. siderable (70 to 700 ft2/day)
| |
| Rocks of unknown age, Probable metasediments type, and structure. and metavolcanics.
| |
| | |
| NNP-2 ER TABLE 2. 4-12 AVERAGE FIELD PERMEABILITY (FT/DAY)
| |
| Specific Pumping Capacity Tracer Cyclic Gradient Tested Tests Tests Tests Fluctuations Method Glaciofluvial 1700-9000 1300-900 8000 2200-7600 (gravels)
| |
| Glacial and 120-670 130-530 130-800 Ringold (gravels)
| |
| Ringold 1-200 8-40 20-66 13-40 (gravels)
| |
| Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| 'ANADA UNITED STATES Northport Grand Coulee SPOKANE Oam Wells Oam
| |
| 'I RI VER Rocky Reach Dam Spokane I
| |
| Rock Island Dam Wanapum Dam Lower Granite Dam Priest Rapids Dam RIVER Lower Monumental Dam I Hanfor Reservation g Little Goose Dam Ri chl n Lewiston Pasco Ice Harbor Oam Kennewick COLUMBIA Hei OREGON RIVER John Day Oam McNary Dam DANS IN THE COLUMBIA FIGHT RIVER BASIN AEC TEMPERATURE The Oalles Dam MONITORING STATIONS OTHER TEMPERATURE STATIONS WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO ~ 2 UPPER AND MIDDLE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN Environmental Report 2 '-1
| |
| | |
| 300 PERIOD: 1929-1958 1970 COND IT IONS 200 CD CD CD.
| |
| MONTHL Y LaJ CO OC C/l CD ANNUAL 100 0
| |
| 0 20 40 . 60 80 100 PERCENT OF TIME- EQUALED OR EXCEEDED WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM DISCHARGE DURATION CURVES OF THE WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO ~ 2, COLUMBIA RIVER BELOW Environmental Report PRIEST"RAPIDS DAM, WA FIG. 2. 4-2
| |
| | |
| Q EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY PER HUNDRED YEARS MN 99.8 99.5 99 95 90 80 50 20 10 5 2 0 1000 9 500
| |
| '0 0
| |
| ff' Q Q C)
| |
| C)
| |
| PERIOD: -1913-1965 LU 1970 CONDITIONS 200 td& CD
| |
| %PC 10<)
| |
| Ocn 0
| |
| 'd QMC8n MOW 0
| |
| '0 Cd%
| |
| H Un R 10 50 500 MOC UCt P
| |
| EXCEEDENCE INTERVAL, YEARS 3'WZ HQ P 3'a PARM t3
| |
| | |
| PERIOD OF RECORD 1929-1958 PERIOD W PO 0 1970 CONDITIONS CA Q HIGH FLOWS A Co p +C 300 1 MONTH OV .3 MONTHS 200 6 MONTHS 12 MONTHS EAN 114,100 CFS 100 12 MONTHS 6 MONTHS 3 MONTHS LU 1 MONTH 50 W 0 C cC 0 2e0 M
| |
| V)
| |
| %0 AgO H C Cl M%4 LOW FLOWS l-3 td W H
| |
| 500 Q
| |
| U MWH P~ R 1.5 2 3 5 10 20 30 50 HA UWR RECURRENCE INTERVAL, YEARS e5 0
| |
| | |
| E 342.2 MSL M1LE 352 10 E 342.0 MSL M1LE 351.8 10
| |
| * 34L7 MSL
| |
| ~ E MlLE 351.5 10 E - 341.5 MSL P
| |
| Ml LE 351.3 10 COLUMB lA R1 VER 0' 36, 000 CF S 200 400 600 800 1000 DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK, ft WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM CROSS SECTIONS OF THE COLUMBIA WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 RIVER IN THE PLANT VICINITY Environmental Report FIG 2. 4-5
| |
| ~
| |
| | |
| E1 5500 E16000 E1 6500 E1 7000 N1 3000 hiMQ 4 MC INTAKE o ne g WNP-1/4 RIVER MILE 351.86 O m)n PUMP HOUSE DISCHARGE 0
| |
| -t'~ o
| |
| )) U7 4ncn o RQ N1 2500 t( ~ A
| |
| ( > }
| |
| ,8 C Q g ) I c
| |
| m hJ ol i
| |
| ~>) ~
| |
| I INTAKE WNP-2 RIVER MILE 351.75 PUMP HOUSE roO I I ~ ~
| |
| no+
| |
| g ~
| |
| DISCHARGE N1 2000 '6 ')id':
| |
| )
| |
| mM ) l ~
| |
| I/I O 370 350. v.'".;."'<
| |
| ~~ O I U n .:,":g';v.
| |
| 360 V
| |
| MM 380 J
| |
| l
| |
| 'U Um EDGE OF RIVER I O I EDGE OF H
| |
| O AT REGULATED LOW FLOW RIVER AT Q
| |
| FO QP Q
| |
| 'CI CI M
| |
| 1 120,000 cfs
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ l,'
| |
| I".~;~.~
| |
| (36,000 cfs)
| |
| III I I N11500 Ch I O m
| |
| | |
| III M 0 5 MM I .g 4 o OPa VV g
| |
| P
| |
| <ted%MO
| |
| ~05 f16,423 340 339 O M 0 RC 338 0P FLOW E16,523.7 DI RECTI ON WNP-2 336 td DISCHARGE td W 04 NOH 335 td 3lO E16, 623 W R RO 0 N11,682 Nll, 782
| |
| %RZ OCR N11,882 Nll, 982 N12,082 N12, 157 4ITI 53 0C trj M
| |
| MIM ITI 'II A I hD 0~
| |
| maw WMW DO
| |
| ~H A td td Xl
| |
| | |
| 45R
| |
| %
| |
| XMOMR 5
| |
| V gW rt P MO ID td GROUND ELEVATION AT WNP-2 SITE ) 460
| |
| ~Q OM HV O ~
| |
| 440 ct C M Q g Od 7,200,000 CFS
| |
| )o GROUND ELEVATION 5,969,000 CFS 4,800,000 CFS 420 Z AT WNP-2 INTAKE C) PUMP HOUSE l 1,360,000 CFS 725,000 CFS MH 300,000 CFS 36,000 CFS 300 345 335 334
| |
| .0 358 355 0ZM RIVER MILES .
| |
| U Q RMW wooX h9 H
| |
| A PQX RWO M HM M H
| |
| MHQ I
| |
| CO Hg M LTI R 0
| |
| | |
| 20 18 16 14 o 12 LIJ CY 10 I
| |
| 8 I I
| |
| | |
| RI CHLAND PRlEST RAP l DS DAM J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
| |
| \
| |
| AVERAGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM COMPARISON FOR PRIEST RAPIDS DAM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 RICHLAND FOR 10-YEAR PERIOD Environmental Report 1965-1974 FIG ~ 2. 4-9
| |
| | |
| 70 UPPER EXTREME o 60 OC I
| |
| <<C CY MEAN LU CL 50
| |
| )
| |
| Ltl CY LOWER EXTREME 40 32 1940 1948 1956 1964 1972 CALENDAR YEARS COMPUTED LONG TERM TEMPERATURE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER AT WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO ~ 2 ROCK ISLAND DAM (1938-1972)
| |
| Environmental Report FIG. 2.4-10
| |
| | |
| 23 BC Onto''~
| |
| 8 22 o
| |
| C3
| |
| ~0 OMRC O 21 OV 20 0
| |
| WOW 19
| |
| : 3. 'C OWCO M td C PRO g LCMU C 18 PERCENT OF TIME TEMPERATURE EQUALS OR EXCEEDS INDICATED VALUE OQQH HQR h3
| |
| <<a x a 0 C) o txj n
| |
| ~NH O Q <<D 17 HZFP HH <<0 5
| |
| 0.1 0.5 LO 5.0 Ca O 8 C RRR Htan
| |
| | |
| 23 4
| |
| one I )O 22 I'~o O
| |
| O M o GC Laf 21 OV 20 g
| |
| td 3'
| |
| WON ) 19 3
| |
| fD WPd 0 CL 18 PERCENT OF TIME TEMPERATURE EQUALS (D
| |
| 'OH 0 gggC ct OR EXCEEDS INDICATED VALUE
| |
| %RA RAfC 0 C C) o H4HP O 17 WON H O
| |
| <D O.l 0.5 1.0 5.0 M
| |
| HWO I
| |
| 0QX3 C
| |
| | |
| l.g 4 22 f~o OS 21 e" 0" CD C)
| |
| + OCo 0 RC ct R W Q P 20 I
| |
| 19 en<
| |
| td C X )
| |
| RR W U 18 XC taAOK PERCENT OF TIME TEMPERATURE EQUALS a OR EXCEEDS INDICATED VALUE gH C C Qg H WRRRgH 17 nx RRXO 0.1 0.5 1.0 5.0 H8 H md'H A W M Rnxx td bJ R QiO HPC 0 R hf I
| |
| 4l 0 xnK
| |
| | |
| WMO MQ I".g 8 I',
| |
| WNITE Sloffs ASSOC WELL g~o NW SE I
| |
| >g ST45 T
| |
| 4nM 0RC ~ ST SS ao/ss 55 SO-SS AE.SS I
| |
| ~5 ISA
| |
| ~ o.ss
| |
| ~ 145 .T . ~ T 1a.s ~
| |
| OV I ~
| |
| I. l. I I.GLACIOFLLIVIALDEPOSITS..T 'e'e'.'>. ee
| |
| 'I''e e . '.': I.'e ~
| |
| . LT-.'I IIITEII
| |
| 'I=.
| |
| I 5 EIs. w I .=~=J RINGOLD FORMATION I \
| |
| V 7
| |
| N..~ Pl
| |
| 'i~y v' SEALEVEL A I HM 0H T RE I WElL OAAWN TO Of SECTION WEll IN flANE Of 5ECTION 0 0H A
| |
| ~ LANE t
| |
| TSI ALLWELLNVNSEAS SNOVLD ~ E NETIXEO ST 515 9H 0 ~ a 5 gX p ta a tsI STA'TVTE MNES AXQ HW tsI MSALT FLOWS 8 ml 0 Q<D BOO H OAQ gQH0 Q
| |
| ILS tsI V tsI O I
| |
| 40 P M H M 0
| |
| a
| |
| | |
| P
| |
| 'o~s~
| |
| ~e so ~ o o es ~~
| |
| ~ so oee oooo so
| |
| ~o
| |
| ~ sS
| |
| ~ ~ ss (
| |
| ~ Oeo
| |
| ~~
| |
| ~ I~ ~ ee ~ ~
| |
| CCOMllA A IVCS ~ se
| |
| ~s
| |
| )p
| |
| ~ ~ ~ iC oee
| |
| ~ so
| |
| ~ os ~o s< ~ oso
| |
| ~e
| |
| ~ os ~ os
| |
| ~ se ees ~e se '5 ~ seo
| |
| ~ so ee ~s so CASIC A
| |
| + ~ ~
| |
| ~os \
| |
| AP
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ \ so
| |
| ~s
| |
| ~ eo
| |
| ~ es
| |
| ~e g
| |
| ~
| |
| ~e ~
| |
| coo ~
| |
| AS
| |
| ~ \e e>> ee 7 ~
| |
| s> ~ os ~
| |
| ~ ss AIS 7~.->> ~ O>> ~ es
| |
| ~ IO gy C4
| |
| ~ e se ~e
| |
| ~ se I
| |
| ~
| |
| eo sos so
| |
| ///i'~
| |
| o
| |
| ~o ~
| |
| ~o ~ ~
| |
| oeo oo le see
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~SASAII OIICAOl ASOVS IIAIIAIAIIS WAISA IASCC CO IOIAS AICAIISCA IMC IIIIQS ASOVS
| |
| ~ 'ASL S I ? I l 5 VACIIIASIVN GROUNDWATER CONTOURS AND LOCATIONS
| |
| .WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTK4 OF WELLS FOR THE HAiNFORD WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO ~ 2 RESERVATION, WASHINGTON Environmenta1 Report, SEPTE>lBER, 1973 FIG. 2.4-1S
| |
| | |
| '
| |
| 3 WE LLS 9 234,244 AND 695 F EET CONSTRUCTION/OPERATION SUPPORT 10,000 GPD WNP4 o WELLS O 372 FEET AND 465 FEET CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT 10,000 GPD Q'o
| |
| ~Q 0
| |
| WNP-2 0 00 0
| |
| WNP.1 NORTH FFTF 5000 SCALE IN FEET 2 WELLS AT 294 AND 399 FEET CONSTRUCTION/OPERATION SUPPORT 100,000 GPD Amendment 3, Januar 1979 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYS POINTS OF GROUNDWATER WITHDREW WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 IN THE VICINITY OF WNP-2 Environmental Report FIG. 2.4-16
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 2.5 GEOLOGY The basic geology of the site and region was described in the AEC Final Environmental Statement (December 1972) . Additional geologic and seismic studies of the site area have been conducted in support of construction and safety studies for WNP-1 and WNP-4. Applicable results are reported in the WNP-2 FSAR. These additional studies have not indicated any need to further evalu-ate the interface between the plant and its operation, and the geologic environment.
| |
| : 2. 5-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2.
| |
| ER 2.6 I REGIONAL HISTORIC g SCEN C g CULTURAL AND NATURAL FEATURES No historic placq~ as listed in the "National Register of Historic Places"~ ~
| |
| occur within a 30-mile radius of the WNP-2 site. The three nearest sites on the National Register are Olmstead Place State Park, Marmes Rockshelter, and Whitman Mission National Historic Site. Olmstead Place State Park is located 70 miles northwest of the Project near Ellensberg, Washington. Marmes Rockshelter is 52 miles northeast of the Project near the confluence of the Palouse and Snake Rivers, and the Whitman Mission is 53 miles to the southeast near Walla Walla, Washington. One natural land-mark listed in the National Register~1~ is within a 50-mile radius of the proposed Project. This is the Ginkgo Petrified Forest State Park, approximately 47 miles to the northwest.
| |
| None of these sites will be affected by the Project.
| |
| However, as of February 10, 1976, three years following the granting of permits and authorities to construct WNP-2, six properties have been determined to be eligible for inclusion on the "National Register of Historic Places" and are within a 30-mile radius of the WNP-2 site <1~ . These properties are entitled to the same protective measures provided for pro-perties on the National Register pursuant to the procedures of the President's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
| |
| The six properties are: the Hanford Island Archaeological Site, 18 miles north of Richland; the Hanford North Archae-ological District, 22 miles -north of Richland; the Paris Archaeological Site, Hanford Works Reservation; the Snively Canyon Archaeological District, 25 miles northwest of Richland; the Wooded Island Archaeological District, north of Richland; and the Savage Island Archaeological District 15 miles north of Richland.
| |
| The location of all six of the properties is within the boundary of the Hanford Reservation which has provided protection to these archaeological sites from destruction by relic collectors through security proceduresDistrict and restricted access. The Wooded Island Archaeological is located about two miles south of the WNP-2 intake, and the WNP-2 pumphouse will be visible from the .north end of Wooded Island. Other than this specific visual alteration, none of the six properties are anticipated to be adversely affected by WNP-2. The State Historic Preservation Officers review of the impact of plant operation on the Wooded Island site is contained in Appendix III.
| |
| : 2. 6-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The historic-ethnographic people who aboriginally occupied the stretch of Columbia River from Priest Rapids to Pasco, Washington, were the Wanapam* Indians (" River People" ).
| |
| Historically, thy main village of the Wanapam was located at Priest Rapids,( >
| |
| approximately 43 miles upstream from the WNP-2 area. There is archaeological evidence, however, that other village sites closer to the project area were important in prehistoric times, such as the extensive village at Wahluke, located 24 miles upstream from the Project area, which was excavated in 1926-27 by the U.S. National Museum.(
| |
| There is no ethnographic evidence that the Wanapam people occupied the immediate Project. area. The last Wanapam occupation of the Project area was in 1943 when the Hanford Reservation was established and the area evacuated. Today, remaining descendants of the Wanapam people live at Priest Rapids and on the Yakima Indian Reservation. Their recent history has been preserved by Relander.(4)
| |
| The archaeology of the middle Columbia River in South Central Washington is largely unknown. Large-scale research was the early 1950's.
| |
| 1$
| |
| < <<
| |
| conducted in the cN~ry Dam Reservoir area to the south in
| |
| ) Upstream, approximately 69 miles, some research was conducted in the Wanapum Dam Reservoir area.~ g~ The only archaeology conducted on the Hanford Reservation since Krieger's~3~ work at Wahluke was a ppg pm-inary survey and test program along the Columbia a field and laboratory investigation near the Hanford River'nd No. 1 Generating Plant carried out by Rice(1 ) under contract with the Washington Public Power Supply System. This study provided a comparative collection of artifacts from an area that has not been studied for over 40 years. It also pro-vided archa'eological evidence that demonstrated aboriginal culture stability and continuity for at least 6500 years.
| |
| It further demonstrated that the archaeological resource within the Hanford area is considerable and warrants further investigation and preservation.
| |
| The services of Dr. David G. Rice, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Idaho, a professional archae-ologist with experience in the Pacific Northwest, were WNP-retained by Burns and Roe, Inc. (architect engineer for
| |
| : 2) in order to determine whether or not archaeological and historical resources might, be affected by project construc-tion or transmission line relocation for WNP-2. Field examination of ghy complete Project area was conducted on August 19, 1972 < ) and of the pumphouse and intake area again between January 6 and 10, 1975 and on February 3, 1975.(13)
| |
| * Students of Anthropology spell the Indian name as Wanapam.
| |
| Historical references spell it Wanapum.
| |
| 2.6-2
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER No archaeological features or historic structures were observed at the reactor site.~l ~
| |
| Geological work at the reactor site indicates that the sediments present include glacial flood gravels and associated sediments which by their nature are not likely to contain archaeological deposits. These observations also pertain to thy between the reactoi site and the Columbia River. corridor the 1972 field examination, evidence was observed of
| |
| 'uring intermittent occupation by aboriginal people adjacent to the west bank of the Columbia River in the vicinity of the WNP-2 pumphouse and water intake. Neither surface concentrations of archaeological materials nor any accumulated depth of occupational debris were observed. Also no historical structures or features were obsexved. Dr. Rice recommended that no further archaeological or historical work be provided for WNP-2 except that the excavation of the pumphouse be re-examined at the time of construction for p~~~j.ble sub-surface evidence of aboriginal occupation.
| |
| Approximately 400 to 500 ft. southeast of the intake water pumphouse area are two archaeological sites (45-BN-113 and 45-BN-ll4) located on the gravel beach on the west bank of the Columbia River. These sites will not be disturbed, and future access wij.l remain unchanged.
| |
| In January 1975, Dr. Rice conducted archaeological investigations in the area of the WNP-2 pumphouse and water intake to determine whether or not subsurface evidence for aboriginal occupation existed. Scattered fire cracked rocks and three cobble implements were recovered in an area 40 feet by 30 feet. Dr. Rice's interpretation of the cultural materials observed is that the immediate project area was intermittently used as a camp site by small groups of prehistoric peoples over the last few hundred years. Their stay at these camps was evidently brief judging from the sparse accumulation of cultural material and artifacts. Since aeolian sediments overlie the cultural material and since the cultural material lies comformably upon overbank river deposits, Dr. Rice concluded that the archaeological material has been deflated by wind erosion into a single floor. The absence of organic material like bone or shell tends to corroborate this view.
| |
| No earlier occupations were encountered in the sediments of the river terrace. Dr. Rice recommended that no further archaeological work be provided for tge construction site of the WNP-2 pumphouse And water intake.<
| |
| 2.6-3
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The transmission line from the Project makes connection to the Bonneville Power Administrations 500 kV switchyard in the 100-N Area of the Hanford Reservation. (See Figure 2.1-2 for location of the 100-N Area). The 18.3 mile long by 135 ft. wide corridor goes in almost a straight line from WNP-2 to the switchyard. Since the corridor is well inland from the Columbia River it does not traverse areas likely to be rich in artifacts from earlier river-oriented tribes.
| |
| 2.6-4
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER CHAPTER 3 THE PLANT 3.1 EXTERNAL APPEARANCE Figure 2.1-4 shows the relative location of the WNP-2 plant, makeup water pumphouse, adjacent roads, railroads and trans-mission lines. Figure 2.1-3 shows the layout of the buildings, structures, roads, and railroads for the plant.
| |
| Figure 3.1-1 is a color oblique aerial photograph from the west of the construction site looking east with the Columbia River in the background. Shown in the photograph are the main plant buildings, spray ponds, and cooling towers.
| |
| Figure 3.1-2 is an artist's conception of the finished plant (looking south-west) including the spray ponds and the cooling towers.
| |
| Two spray ponds are located approximately 600 ft. southeast of the diesel generator building. Each is 250 ft. square and 15 ft. deep.
| |
| Six round concrete mechanical (induced) draft cooling towers (See Figures 3.1-3 and 3.4-1), each 60 ft. high and 200 ft.
| |
| in diameter, and the circulating water pumphouse, are located approximately 700 ft. south of the radwaste and control building.
| |
| The makeup water pumphouse (See Figures 3.1-4 and 3.1-5) is located 3 miles east of the plant on the west shore of the Columbia River Mile 352 (at an elevation of 374 ft. 6" above MSL), and will supply makeup water for WNP-2.
| |
| The bottle storage building, for storing hydrogen, carbon dioxide and nitrogen, is located 367 ft. north of the turbine generator building (See Figure 2.1-4).
| |
| Two 400,000 gallon, 40 ft. high condensate storage tanks are located 36 feet north of the turbine generator building. An 800,000 gallon concrete dike, surrounding the tanks, will contain any spills.
| |
| The locations and elevations of all gaseous and liquid radio-active release points are shown in Figure 3.1-6.
| |
| All of the structures are functional in design and the maxi-mum effort has been made to achieve an esthetically pleasing appearance. Within the plant fence line, the grounds will be seeded with grass or stabilized with gravel. Unused plant property not seeded or graveled will be left in 3.1-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER its natural state. Nothing will be allowed to grow within 20 feet, of the plant security fence line.
| |
| Seclusion of the plant is achieved by it's location within the Hanford Reservation where travel by the general public is restricted. Low profile mechanical draft cooling towers and appropriate coloring of the plant, facilitate the intre-gation of the plant with the desert plain surrounding the site.
| |
| 3 ~ 1 2
| |
| | |
| hi M 0 5 Mg go/ Q o nba m fo 0~8 l99 76'IAMETER OUT TO OUT OF TOWER
| |
| <Rm 0RC ct 8 W Q P r
| |
| 'ASED STAIRWAY EOUIPMENT ACCESS DOOR MANWAY ACCESS DOOR hf H
| |
| Q 4J I
| |
| lA
| |
| | |
| <OR H EgEVATIOlv b 0
| |
| ~r%T~
| |
| CIIEP AHA Ww
| |
| ~
| |
| EAWPST teTH
| |
| ~SCCA Co
| |
| ~b4d Eas EVATioN
| |
| | |
| -4S FIGURE 3. 1-5 WNP-2 MAKE-UP WATER PUMP HOUSE
| |
| | |
| XTI) O g MC Pe g
| |
| LEGEND T RBINE G N v(Su tLEV.(f~)
| |
| rI M 8 QI, VENT STACK- REACTOR BLDG. SW G1 I I
| |
| Xg QE VENT-(ONTROL BLDG.- 204 w E<5 25 N
| |
| N 545 QS EXN.PLENUM VENT- CONTROL BLDG I 51 W 145 542 Q4 ISSW I85
| |
| ~H Q5
| |
| (@ ~ ~
| |
| I I4 W I2,1 W
| |
| )45 IBS II OV QT VENT-RADWASTE BLDG 241 W 91 5 509 5
| |
| << I 24 5 ~RA(~TO R bLDG.
| |
| Qb <I Ial5 Q<<l SLOWDOWN RELEASE PT. Il.110 E 232 N 338
| |
| ~R<W <<<
| |
| N PART PLAN',
| |
| T<S, SEE PART PIAN WNP E HAKE UP rr~ WATER PUMP NOUSE Nl PROPERTY LIHE III
| |
| >oy IK <<.
| |
| WNP"t bLOW DOWH LINE II R' \
| |
| CBDD) I Ie WNP t )L ~~ $ g THUD).)> ~ TKHP"2 MAKE UP WATER LIHE mm TIHP.E ACCESS ROAD 0 0 LSPRAY PONDS H 0 0 TO 8ENTON SWITOIING STA.
| |
| Q WNP t 4OO LING TOWERS I
| |
| AEO ESS ROAD WATER PUMP HOUSE 4P
| |
| !
| |
| OVE A IT P A I
| |
| I I Ch i
| |
| | |
| NNP-2 ER 3.2 REACTOR AND STEAM ELECTRIC SYSTEM NNP-2 is a single unit nuclear electric generating plant having a nominal electric power output of approximately 1100 MNe. The plant, designed by the architect-engineer Burns and Roe, Inc., consists of a boiling water reactor, turbine generator, evaporative cooling tower system, a pumphouse which takes makeup water from the Columbia River, a 500 kilo-volt transmission line leading to the Bonneville Power Administration's H. J. Ashe Substation adjacent to the site, and other associated facilities required for the generation of electric power.
| |
| 3.2.1 Nuclear Steam Su 1 S stem The Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) consists of a General Electric Co. boiling water reactor and the necessary auxiliary systems required to control, contain, and service the nuclear core. The system has a guaranteed'output of 3323 megawatts.
| |
| A reactor pressure vessel houses the nuclear core where nuclear fission provides the energy required to produce steam. The core contains 764 fuel assemblies, 185 control rod assemblies, and other supporting hardware. The fuel consists of uranium dioxide pellets with enrichments varying from natural (0.71) to 3.0 weight percent U-235 clad with zircaloy.
| |
| The initial core will containfromfuel assemblies approximately having an 0.71 to 2.19 average enrichment ranging weight percent U-235. The core average enrichment will be about 1.87% U-235 depending on initial cycle requirements.
| |
| Each assembly will contain between one and seven different enrichment rods. Selected rods in each assembly will, in addition, be blended with gadolinium burnable poison. The reload fuel will also contain four'ifferent enrichment rods with an average enrichment between 2.5S and 3.1% U-235. The reload fuel average enrichment will be about 2.71% U-235 depending on operating cycle requirements.
| |
| Five to seven different U-235 enrichments are used in the en-riched fuel assemblies to reduce the local power peaking.
| |
| Low enrichment uranium rods are used in the corner rods and in the rods nearer the water gaps; higher enrichment. uranium is used in the central part of the fuel bundle. The fuel rods are equipped with characteristic mechanical end fittings to assure proper assembly preventing a higher enrichment, rod to be fitted in a location of a lower enrichment rod. The general layout of the core, core cell, and fuel assembly uranium enrichment is shown in Figures 3.2-1, 3.2-2, and 3.2-3.
| |
| Cooling of the core is accomplished by boiling water which is recirculated using jet pumps located in the peripheral area 3.2-1 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER around the core inside the reactor. The pumps are powered from twe'xternally located motor driven centrifugal pumps which draw a fraction of the reactor water from the vessel and (See return it with increased pressure, to the jet pumps.
| |
| Figure 3.2-4) The power level and rate of steam produc-tion is controlled by hydraulically activated control rods.
| |
| The steam that is produced in the core is separated from the reactor water and dried in the top of the vessel prior to exit from the vessel. The guaranteed steam -flow is 14,295,000 lbs. per hour with 985 psi absolute and 0.3% moisture outlet conditions. The thermodynamic parameters of the reactor are shown in Figure 3.2-5.
| |
| The reactor is controlled at a nearly constant pressure.
| |
| During normal operations, the steam admitted to the turbine is controlled by the. turbine initial pressure regulator which maintains essentially constant pressure at the turbine inlet, thus controlling the vessel pressure. The integration of the turbine pressure regulator/control system and the reactor recirculation flow control system permits the quantity of steam being produced to respond automatically to the tur-bine demand.
| |
| The nuclear system is supported by the specialized functions of its auxiliary systems. The major auxiliary systems used for normal operation are:
| |
| Reactor Water Cleanup System-Residual Heat Removal System Fuel Pool Cooling and Filtering System Cooling Water Systems Radioactive Waste Disposal Systems Details of these systems are described in the Final Safety Analysis Report.
| |
| Other auxiliary systems are provided as backup or emergency systems to ensure safe shutdown of the reactor during any design basis accident including those resulting from natural phenomenon such as earthquakes,.tornadoes, and floods.
| |
| 3.2.2 Turbine S stem The turbine system (See Figure 3.2-6) uses the Rankine steam cycle with a closed regenerative feedwater heating cycle.
| |
| Steam leaves the reactor vessel at 985 psia and enters the turbine at 970 psia with a .38% moisture content. The turbine-j.s an 1800 rpm tandem compound turbine generator of 3~2 2 0
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Westinghouse Electric Corp. manufacture having a six-flow exhaust end with 44" last stage blades. Steam is exhausted into a condenser with 792,000 sq. ft. of surface and designed for a 2.5 in. backpressure. The net plant heat rates at the backpressure variations ranging from 1" Hg to 4" Hg for maxi-mum load at 5% 'overpressure, 75%, and 50% are plotted in Figure 3.2-7. Six stages of regenerative feedwater heating are provided including four from the low-pressure turbines, arranged in three parallel strings and two from the high-pressure turbine, arranged in two parallel strings. The final design feedwater temperature at normal full load is 420oF.
| |
| The power cycle includes a reheater at the high-pressure tur-bine exhaust. Reheating is accomplished in two stages by using steam from the reactor and from one extraction stage of the high pressure turbine. Two reheater moisture separator assemblies are used.
| |
| The turbine generator is guaranteed to deliver 1154 MWe, measured at the generator terminals, when operated at steam conditions listed above, associted with Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) guaranteed power. In-plant. electric power con-sumption is expected to be approximately 50 MWe resulting in an estimated net plant electrical output of approximately 1104 MWe.
| |
| The turbine building is arranged with the longitudinal axis of the turbine-generator oriented in an approximate east-west direction. The reactor building is immediately south of the turbine building (See Figure 2.1-4).
| |
| 3~2 3
| |
| | |
| 81 80 69 68 57 68 oc3 GQQDGE3 GD QGGo 54 55 QHaoo o+o Q+Q o+o Q+Q ooo+o oo g
| |
| 53 62 QClCP CI O C~ICIO~CI C~3CI Q~CI yC! C~ICI 50 48
| |
| ~9 0 GG OG CIQ CIO OG+ C3C3C3 oo oo oooooooooc+iooo o oooo
| |
| '- H+H %P'8-'+8"PQ'P QP"Po~~o ClC30 C3Cl 00+Qo+o0Cl+oo+oGO Cl
| |
| +odQa+a%oo Qa~HQQ Qoooo
| |
| ~H QQH&o+o ~oo+on+no+o o +ooo +oc++oo+
| |
| 28 QyCI QyoOCI yCl ~ooyClOqCI ~CICqlCI gal opal CqlO CljCI QyCl ao oa ox aa oo co
| |
| -"- 98 25 21 ~ ClCI GQOClClCIGQC1CIGClClCIOO Ckl
| |
| ~ Cylo QP OP CylCI C~IQ QP CylCI CPI Q!CI 18 17 0 QREgo @cl88@cl Q~RRpcl 14 12 15 13 avon O OCkl F88~
| |
| 11 10 08 09 0 Cl 08 04 07 05 QOClCl Cl C3CI aaaooaaaaaoaa 03 02 01 RaPao~oo~oc+ Qpoo+H P R 0 Ã R 0 ~ < 4 0 0 8 e X g 5 8
| |
| ~ ~ h e t e + n e ~ el 0 S 8 8 g g g <n NUMBER OF FUEL ASSEMBLIES 764 NUMBER OF CONTROL ROOS 1BB NUMBER OF LPRM'S 43 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 CORE ARRANGEMENT Environmental Report FIG ~ 3. 2-1
| |
| | |
| 00000000 00000000 000000~ I 00000000 00000000 00000000 00008000 00080000 00080000 00008000 0000000 00000000 00000000 -00000 00000000 0000 1 2 3 4 S 4 7 4 g F 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 14 17 I0 19 20 21 22 23 24 ROO O.O. C.4133 in.
| |
| I 25 2d 27 25 30 31 32 C LAO THICKNESS 0.032 in.
| |
| 34 3$ 79 30 FUEL PELLET O.O. G 4'0 in. 33 l 41 49 42 50 43 S I 44 52 4S 53 44 54
| |
| <7
| |
| $5 44 54 INSIOE RAOIU5 S7 Sl 59 d0 41 d2 dl d4 WATER ROO OIM. IDENTIFICATION E F OIM. INCHES 12.0 5.278 0.261 0.260 0.100 0.157 OIM. IOENTIFICATION OIM. INCHES 4.84 0.261 1.58 0.38 0.158 0.640 Amendment 2, October 1978
| |
| . NhSHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 Environmental Report TYP ICAL CORE CELL PIG. 3~2 2
| |
| | |
| 8 x 8 LATTICE
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| (2.19% ENR ICHMENT) 10 10 ROD TYPE NO. WT 9a U235" 1 19 3.00 2 7 2.60 3 10 2.20 4 10 2.00 5 8 1.70 6 4 1.30 7 1 Gd203 8 1 Gd203 9 2 Gd2O3 10 2 WATER ROD
| |
| 'OES NOT INCLUDE 6 IN. OF NATURAL URANIUM AT TOP AND BOTTOM OF FUEL COLUMN.
| |
| Amendment 2, October 1978 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM FUEL ASSEMBLY WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 ENRICHMENT DISTRIBUTION Environmental Report FIG ~ 3. 2-3
| |
| | |
| MAIN STEAM FLOW STEAM DRYERS TO TURBINE STEAM SEPARATORS MAIN FEED FLOW FROM TURBINE DRIVING FLOW~
| |
| CORE JET PUMP RECIRCULATION PUMP FIGHT WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM STEAM AND RECIRCULATION WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 WATER FLOW PATHS Environmental Report 3.2-4
| |
| | |
| LEGEND ASSUMED SYSTEM LOSSES
| |
| = FLOW, Ib/hr THERMAL 1 .1 MW F = TEMPERATURE oF 1020 P H,h = 'ENTHALPY, Btu/Ib M = % MOISTURE MAIN STEAM FLOW 14,295,000 0 P = PRESSURE, psia
| |
| = ISOLATION VALVES I I (
| |
| 1191.5 H 0.3 M 985 MAIN FEED FLOW 14,389,000 $P 14,256,000 g 35,700,000 3323 MWt 420 F, 397.8 h 420.0 F,397.6 h A'34 F1 528.7 h TOTAL CORE 2RECIRCULATION LOOPS FLOW 20 INTERNAL JET PUMPS 108.5 xlOSN hh= i+2 Core thermal power Pump heating 436 F Cleanup demin.
| |
| system loss 4.4 415.3 h Other system losses 1.1 CLEANUP TURBINE CYCLE USE 3329.9 MW DEMINERALIZER SYSTEM ROD DRIVE 39,000 (( 133,000 $/
| |
| FEED FLOW 80 F 533 F 48 h 527.5 h FROM CONDENSATE STORAGE TANK WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM GE REACTOR SYSTEM HEAT BALANCE WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 FOR BATED POWER Environmental Report FIG ~ 3. 2-5
| |
| | |
| ~ ~ 0 e
| |
| I I pPfHilff$
| |
| I' I
| |
| ,E I
| |
| aq~qa
| |
| | |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ I I
| |
| | |
| 12,200 12,000 NOTE AUX POWER AT MAX LOAD = 4 '% OF GROSS GENERATXON 11,800 75% rom = 4.8%
| |
| 50% Lom = 5.2%
| |
| 11,600 50% LOAD
| |
| $ 11,400 F11'00 75% LOAD 5 11,000 c-l10,800 10,600 MAX. LOAD 5% O.P.
| |
| 10,400 10,200 10,000
| |
| .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 BACK PRESSURE,
| |
| '.5 ZNCHES Hg 3.0 3.5 4.0 NET PLANT HEAT RATE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM VARIATIONS WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 VS TURBINE BACK PRESSURE Environmental Report PIG. 3.2-7
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 3.3 PLANT WATER USE 3.3.1 Overall Plant Water to meet normal operating requirements is withdrawn from the Columbia River by the cooling tower makeup pumps. Hydro-logical data 'for the river are presented in Section 2.4.1.
| |
| During periods when the cooling tower makeup pumps are not operating, small quantities of makeup demineralized water and potable water may be produced using the standby well water supply. The quantity of plant makeup water withdrawn from the Columbia River is primarily dependent upon water losses from the circulating water system in the form of cooling tower evaporation, drift and blowdown. Other systems in the plant.
| |
| water balance include: process water treatment system, potable water and sanitary waste system, and chemical and radwaste systems.
| |
| Figure 3.3-1 is a water use flow diagram for the plant.
| |
| Table 3.3-1 lists plant water use when operating at maximum power operation (expected average power operation) and tempor-ary shutdown conditions. Average consumptive water use, that is, water withdrawn but not returned to the river, at 100%
| |
| load factor, is approximately 13,000 gpm which is 0.026% of the annual average Columbia River flow and 0.08% of the mini-mum licensed "iver flow of 16,200,000 gpm.
| |
| 3.3.2 Heat Dissi ation S stem A recirculating cooling water system with mechanical draft wet cooling towers will dissipate excess heat from the condens-ing steam in the main condenser and other plant auxiliary heat exchange equipment, to the atmosphere. The temperature of the closed cycle cooling water is increased by about 28 F by passing through the main condenser and other plant auxil-iary heat exchange equipment. The cooling water temperature is reduced in the cooling towers by the evaporation of water and by the transfer of sensible heat to the atmosphere. The evaporation rates from the cooling towers varies, with plant operation power level, ambient air temperature and humidity.
| |
| A small quantity of water is entrained in the air passing through the cooling tower and is lost from the system as "drift". Drift eliminators are used in the cooling towers to minimize this loss, which will average about 285 gpm.
| |
| Dissolved and suspended solids, originally present in the river water, are concentrated in the cooling towers by the evaporation process. A small portion of the circulating water is withdrawn, by blowdown, to control the solids level as part of cooling water chemistry management. When operating at fullpower operation, it is expected that the cooling tower
| |
| : 3. 3-1
| |
| | |
| NiilP 2 ER blowdown flow, returned to the Columbia River, will average 2580 gpm. A detailed discussion of the heat dissipation system is given in Section 3.4. Environmental effects are described in Section 5.1.
| |
| 3.3.3 Process Water Treatment S stems Process water treatment systems'prepare river water for station use, potable and sanitary water use, and miscellaneous water requirements. River water, which is used for potable water, sanitary water, and demineralized water, is first treated by filtration for the removal of suspended matter.
| |
| A maximum of 250 gpm of filtration capacity is provided.
| |
| is anticipated that the average operating demand for filtered lt water will be approximately 10 gpm.
| |
| The makeup water demineralizer provides high quality water for station use including filling and replacement of losses from the nuclear steam supply system, chemical control solution preparation, and the replacement of water lost in waste treatment processes. Virtually all liquid wastes from normal station operations are treated in the radioactive and chemical waste system and recovered to the extent possible for reuse in the primary system. The makeup water demineralizer has an operating capacity of 150 gpm but is expected to operate at an average flow rate of about 6 gpm during normal operation. At times of system will operate near design capacity.
| |
| fill and outages, the system Filtered water will also be used in the potable water and sanitary waste system. This facility has a capacity of 50 gpm but is expected to operate at an average daily rate of about 2,500 gal/day.
| |
| 3-3.4 Chemical and Radwaste S stems Virtually all chemical waste from the station is processed through the radwaste system. Consumptive water use is approximately 100 gal/day. This represents the quantity of liquids lost through solid waste processes. Solidified wastes in sealed radioactive waste containers will be removed by a licensed contractor for storage at a licensed facility.
| |
| A detailed discussion of the radwaste system is given in Section 3.5.
| |
| 3~3 2 Amendment 1 i>ay 1978
| |
| | |
| TABLE 3.3-1 PLANT WATER USE WNP-2 Maximum Power 0 eration Tem orar Shutdown Re- Re-Con- turned Con- turned Total sumptive to Total sumptive : to Flow Use River Flow Use River (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm)
| |
| A. Circulating Water S stems a) Evaporation 12,588 12,588 368 368 b) Drift 285 285 c) Blowdown 2,580 2,580 d) Process Water Treatment 10 10 Chemical and Radwaste* 6 6 Potable and Sanitary* 2 2 C. Total (a+b+c+d) 15,463 12,877 2,586 378 372
| |
| * Source Process Water Treatment
| |
| | |
| CMFT LGvSS TO Evaa RATION LOSS ATMOSI'HERE
| |
| ) vs 485 GPM
| |
| <<V. SPHERE AYS IT,S!5 OPIA MAINI NEAT ISSIP T>>kvv GVS \VV PLaNT MAKEUP PN CONTROL !CC 4 Ih>>.
| |
| FAGM RIVER IS Acio I v I>>v>>
| |
| MAx 25,000 GPM HEAT DISSIPATION Sva Ev vk I a LP Vve R>>L kv OGLING TO>>ERELCN Ow>>AE'IUA>>ED RETURNED TO RIVER AVG. I!443 GPM Max. 23000GPM AIS ! !! Sxy
| |
| ~
| |
| +]CIRCULATIIVC>> WATER>> R~ 4! IOHIVEN <<ax .vcc avb ELGOGPM AV6 2555 GPM C OO i>>G ~vwLA~
| |
| Max 250 GPM A'VG <<IO GPM P ANT NlWCL WATER&
| |
| 'LYST LM
| |
| ~ 0 X a>>L w>>RA 5 O'L>>I EVAPORATION 4 TANK VENT LOSSES TO NEUTNA I E W, AIMOSPHERE>>I 000 GPO AvG I CPM I
| |
| WASTE COLLEC'FOR SUOSVSTEM GKIC CE IE536 GPD 54>>a I
| |
| STaTIDN UsE 42.445 GPD FLOOR DRAIN COLLECTOR SUbSYSTEM 4 I52 GPD
| |
| ~RA A~VI
| |
| ~MI SOLID WASTES TO SOLID MAKEUP G 6GPM 5,~NEAT ~DT I wASTE HANDLING )00 GPD FILTF. R
| |
| ~wa T
| |
| ~YTEM ~HM~IA
| |
| ~MIN R~AI R CKEMICAL 4 DETERGENT WASTES 3800 GPD ~YT M wELL WATER CSIANUGV)
| |
| SLUOGES C 400 GPO EXCE55 CONDENSATE AVG ~i000 GPO DEMINERa<<EEDNATER TJOOGPD
| |
| 'v 3 WATER 0 SO CPM RECOVER!0 FROM RADWASTE 34.345 GPD SACKwAS~ WATER, 0100GFM avG IGPM.
| |
| I sa>>ITARY WI ST! To s!p'IIc Ta>>K SYSTEM 2300 GPCI MAX. SCGPM STCAM AND ROOF CRklHS !.4 caallc>>
| |
| ~ aI 0 Ltac>>IN) PONDS Amendment 1, !l g 197M WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM PLANT SYSTEMS WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 MATER USE DIAGRAM Environmental Report FIG. 3 3-1
| |
| | |
| -0 e p4
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 3.4 HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM Heat is dissipated from the WNP-2 turbine condensers by a mechanical draft cooling tower system. Thermal impacts on the Columbia River are avoided.
| |
| A description of the heat dissipation facilities for WNP-2 is provided in the following subsections. The environmental effects due to the operation of the WNP-2 heat. dissipation system are discussed in Section 5.1.
| |
| 3.4.1 Mechanical Draft Coolin Towers 3.4.1.1 General A mechanical draft tower system utilizes evaporative cooling by contacting the warm water with air. The water is cooled both by sensible and by evaporative heat transfer. Intimate contact of water with air is accomplished by introducing the warm water at the top of the tower causing flow by gravity, through fill material, crosscurrent to the air. Air is in-troduced into the tower through louvered side panels, flows upward through the tower fill material, drift eliminators, through the fan stack passes through the (which houses the air moving equipment) and finally discharges to the atmos-phere. The cooled water is collected in basins at the base of the tower.
| |
| During this cooling process, a small percentage of the total water inventory is lost due to evaporation and drift. In addition, water is discharged from the system through system blowdown, required to limit the concentration of naturally occurring river salts in the closed cycle as a result of the evaporation process. The water makeup system, which provides the necessary water to keep the system in equilibrium, is discussed in Subsection 3.4.2.1.
| |
| 3.4.1.2 Desi n of the Mechanical Draft Coolin Towers In the design of the cooling tower system, the following features related to environmental matters were considered:
| |
| : a. blowdown requirements including outfall structures,
| |
| : b. makeup requirements,
| |
| : c. meteorological effects,
| |
| : d. hydrological effects, and
| |
| : e. chemical and thermal effects on natural bodies of water.
| |
| : 3. 4-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The heat dissipation system is designed to cool 570,000 gpm of cooling water, rejecting 7.88 x 109 BTU/hr to the environs.
| |
| The heat load for the WNP-2 cooling towers comes almost en-tirely from the 550,000 gpm circulating water system (with a travel time across the condenser of 15.17 seconds). The only major WNP-2 heat dissipation subsystem is the plant ser-vice water system. This system provides cooling water for most of the plants cooling coils, etc. and results in less than 4% of the heat load as provided by the circulating water system. The effect on the environment due to the added heat resulting from the plant service water system is insignifi-cant in comparison to the heat to be dissipated by the cir-culating water system. As shown in Figure 3.4-1, six towers are used, with each cooling tower approximately 60 feet to the top of the fan stacks and approximately 200 feet in diam-eter (see Figure 3.1-3) . Each tower is provided with 6-200 hp, 30 foot diameter fans used to induce the draft required to operate the tower. The discharge velocity from the fan stacks will be approximately 33 fps. Figure 3.4-2 is a cut away view of one tower and Figure 2.1-4 shows the relation of the towers with the main plant structures.
| |
| Cooling water for the condensing of the turbine exhaust sys-tem is supplied to the tube side of the condenser by circu-lating water pumps located in the circulating water pump house. These pumps take suction from the tower basins and are designed with sufficient head to pump through the con-denser back to the cooling tower distribution system.
| |
| Design values for the cooling towers are:
| |
| Wet-bulb temperature 60 F Approach to wet bulb 16.3 F Range 28 F Cold-side temperature 76.3 F These numbers indicate that under design conditions, cooling water at 76.3oF enters the condensers where it is heated 28oF to 104.3oF. From there this hot water is pumped to the cool-ing tower where, in air with a wet-bulb temperature of 60oF, it is cooled to 76.3oF, which is within 16.3oF of the wet-bulb temperature. The 76.3oF water is returned to the con-denser and the cycle is repeated. A cooling tower perform-ance curve is shown in Figure 3.4-3.
| |
| Although the individual towers are designed for a 60 F wet-bulb temperature, it is necessary to provide for plant oper-ation at less favorable conditions, so a conservative worst-case value of 70oF wet-bulb temperature was chosen for plant capacity design calculations. This is reasonable in terms 3.4-2
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER of data shown in Table 2.3-22, which shows that the annual wet-bulb temperature for the WNP-2 site is such that a wet-bulb temperature between 60o and 65oF would not prevail more than 6.68% of the year and one higher than 65oF not more than 1.87% of the -'year.
| |
| 3.4.2 Circulatin Water S stem Balance Water is lost from the heat dissipation system by evaporation, drift, and blowdown. To balance these losses, makeup water from the Columbia River is required.
| |
| The design values used for blowdown are based on a dissolved solids concentration factor of about five (with a range of 3-10) in the cooling tower water as compared to river water.
| |
| The nominal blowdown rates calculated for normal operation vary from about 2000 to 4000 gpm. A higher rate, i.e., up to 6500 gpm, may be needed on occasion to lower the concentra-tion of dissolved solids in the circulating water system (The composition of the Columbia River and blowdown water is given in Table 3.6-1)
| |
| Expected values of evaporation rates, blowdown temperatures, normal river temperatures, and blowdown rates are given in Figure 3.4-4 as a function of time of year. These curves each give an expected average over the month. Actually, a range of values above and below the curves would represent conditions from expected maxima to expected minima. For example, the average blowdown water temperature is shown to be about 75oF in August. Xn August the range of blowdown tem-perature extends about 7oF above the average, to a maximum of 82oF. This is the maximum temperature expected at which water would be returned to the river. This maximum value is based on the assumption that heat transferred in the cooling towers is entirely by evaporation, with no transfer of sen-sible heat from the warm water, since in summer the ambient air dry-bulb temperature would be high.
| |
| The following table gives both maximum and annual average values for the heat dissipation system. Consumptive use is evaporation plus drift, where drift is taken as 0.05% of the circulating water system flow, rate. Drift was determined through the use of empirical relationships determined from experimental data(1). Required makeup is evaporation plus drift plus blowdown.
| |
| Maximum Annual Average Consumptive use 16,500 12,873 Blowdown 6,500 2,580 Required makeup 23,000 15,453 3.4-3
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The actual makeup water capacity for WNP-2 is 25,000 gpm (See Section 3.4.2.1). See Figure 3.3-1 for a plant water balance chart.
| |
| 3.4.2.1 Intake S stem Makeup water for WNP-2 is taken from the Columbia River via a river intake which is located approximately 3 miles due east of the plant site. The intake system is made up of three parts: two perforated pipe inlets supported offshore above the bed of the river and approximately parallel to the river flow, two 36 inch diameter steel lead-in pipes approximately 900 ft. long, and the pump structure embedded into the river bank with a major portion below grade. The intake system general plan is shown in Figure 2.4-6. Figure 3.4-5 is a detailed plan and profile of the intake system.
| |
| The pump structure contains three makeup water pumps, each having a capacity of 12,500 gpm. Two pumps with a combined pumping capacity of 25,000 gpm will supply maximum plant water requirements, the third pump will be a spare. Architec-tural elevations and an artist's conception of the pump struc-ture are shown in Figure 3.1-4 and 3.1-5. Plan and sections of the pump structure are shown in Figure 3.4-6. The pump house contains only the pumps, pump operating auxiliaries and flow control provisions. There are no screens or other water cleaning facilities in the structure.
| |
| Details of the "T" intake section and its connection to the two lead-in pipes are shown in Figure 3.4-7. Each "T" inlet is constructed of perforated steel pipes, with an outer 42-inch diameter pipe having 3/8-inch diameter holes covering about 40 percent of the area and an inner 36-inch diameter sleeve with 3/4-inch diameter holes covering about 7 percent of the area. The perforated pipe surface serves as the water cleaning facility. The outer sleeve is designed to prevent trash and fish entrainment, and the inner sleeve is designed to provide uniform intake velocities through the outer sleeve perforations.
| |
| The inlet velocities are expected to be well below the accept-able limit required for suitable. protection of small fish when water is being taken into the system. At the external screen surface under maximum operating conditions, with 12,500 gpm flowing through each "T", the velocity through the external screen openings is approximately 0.5 fps. At a distance of less than one third inch from the outer s"reen surface, the inlet approach velocity drops to less than 0.2 fps. Figure 3.4-8 shows the velocity profile of water approaching the inlet for two modes of circulation flow, as determined by hydraulic model testing~2). Figure 3.4-9, from the same model test. series, shows the velocity distribution for 25,000 gpm
| |
| : 3. 4-4
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER through one inlet at 3/8-inch distance from the screen surface (abnormal or emergency condition). As shown in Figures 3.4-8 and 3.4-9, during normal or abnormal flow, flow velocities are low and flow distribution is even. During reduced flow, the perforated pipe intake velocity characteristics would be proportionately reduced.
| |
| Undersirable debris is not expected to pass through the outer perforations with these very low inlet velocities. A back-wash system has been provided to permit low velocity flow reversal through the perforations. The perforated sleeves have been designed to reduce the potential for debris collec-tion and to permit complete removal for periodic inspection, cleaning, repair and replacement. The frequency of backwash-ing and sleeve removal for the objective of minimizing bio-
| |
| , logical damage will be determined from a one year monitoring program including, but not limited to visual inspections of the intake and sampling to determine fish losses.
| |
| 3.4.2.2 Dischar e S stem The blowdown discharge system is a single pipe of varying diameter, running from the plant to the Columbia River. The layout of the discharge line is shown in Figure 2.4-6.
| |
| is buried underground and runs parallel to the makeup water It line. The blowdown line in the river is located downstream of the intakes and is buried in the river bed. The exit point is a rectangular slot (See Figure 3.4-10) and is located as shown in Figure 2.4-6, about 175 feet from the river low water line. Adequate riprap has been placed around the discharge to avoid any erosion to the river bed.
| |
| The line has been designed to accommodate a maximum blowdown rate of 6,500 gpm. However, the average blowdown will be in the range of 2,000 4,000 gpm. Capability has been provided for greater discharge rates, should it become desirable.
| |
| Control of slimes and algae within the circulating water system is discussed in subsection 3.6.3. Removal of any algae and slimes will be via the blowdown. Discharge of blowdown
| |
| ,
| |
| to the river will not occur during chlorination.
| |
| Two concrete basin spray ponds are provided for emergency cooling. In accordance with present requirements, the water inventory contained therein is adequate for emergency cooling for a period of thirty days. Each pond is 250 feet square with a combined surface area of 2.87 acres. Each pond is 15 feet deep, consisting of 14 feet of water and 1 foot of free board. Figure 2.1-4 shows the location of the spray ponds.
| |
| 3.4-5
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Slimes and algae in the spray ponds will be controlled with chlorine. Any discharges to the river would occur via trans-fer to and mixing with the cooling tower basin water.
| |
| 3.4-6
| |
| | |
| -ELEV.507.7 'IR FLOW MARLEY MULTIBLADEFAN MECHANICAL GRP FAN CYLINDER STEEL PERIMETER EQUIPMENT ELECTRIC MOTORS FANDECK HANDRAIL SUPPORT NORMAL OPERATING WATER LEVEL MARLEY DISTRIBUTION FLUME GEAREDUCER PRECAST FANDECK ELEV.4e7.
| |
| I'2'CB PERIMETER WIND SCREEN I.O'.75 DISTRIBUTION BASIN DECK SUPPORT BEAMS PRECAST RADIAL BENT PANELS PRECAST LOUVERS PRECAST CIRCUMFERENTIAL P4NELS ACB ELIMINATORS IN NONCOMBUSTIBLE GRP
| |
| ~
| |
| SUPPORT FRAMES FLOW~
| |
| AIR DECK AND FAN SUPPORT COLUMNS ACB SPLASH BARS IN NONCOMBUSTIBLE GRP SUPPORT GRIDS CSIN FLOOR ELEV. 444.0,'-
| |
| KN .OF QJRB ELEV.
| |
| WEIR El EV.447.5 4480'VERFUR/
| |
| t OPERATING GRADE ELEV 4440' ''98SHED ELEV.44350'ORMAL WATER LEVEL ELEV. 444.2 ELEV.439.0 ELEV.439.5 0'ONCRETE BASIN TOWER SYMMETRICAL ABOUT 1
| |
| WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY KNFR CENTER FILL SYSTEM'PPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 SECTI(M THRU J
| |
| 1 Environmental Report FIG- 3.4-2
| |
| | |
| . 0 O.
| |
| ~ LOUVER PERIMETER N- I ENCLOSED STAIRWAY BASIN CURB O
| |
| lI?
| |
| II?
| |
| l r
| |
| l,2OI.42''ATUM
| |
| /
| |
| CW"CT-2B /r IB
| |
| // I I I 'I UM'W-CT- // I/
| |
| ~
| |
| I OVERFLOW WEIR
| |
| / /
| |
| J 1
| |
| / I ! I I I 1 I 1 I I 1
| |
| /I 1
| |
| J r 1 I
| |
| I
| |
| / ~
| |
| 1 I I I
| |
| OVERFLOW WEIR 1 1 I OPEN 1
| |
| I I / I I STAIRWAY I \ r 1 I I ~
| |
| I
| |
| // I I
| |
| I
| |
| //
| |
| 1 ~
| |
| OPEN I FAN CYLINDER J /
| |
| r/
| |
| STAIRWAY r
| |
| CW CT-2A
| |
| //
| |
| OPEN ENCLOSED
| |
| / I I
| |
| J I /r r- STAIRWAY STAIRWAY OPEN
| |
| \
| |
| / '!
| |
| I
| |
| =
| |
| I II I
| |
| /
| |
| I jr \
| |
| 1
| |
| !
| |
| I STAIRWA / I
| |
| !
| |
| 1 1
| |
| r
| |
| \
| |
| I J l I I l rr r 1
| |
| J I
| |
| (mn UM 1
| |
| ~~j,i I 1 1
| |
| I 1 J
| |
| I J I! I I''/ /I 1 I
| |
| I N-I0,900' I 84"COLD WATER r I I
| |
| / I 1
| |
| I
| |
| ! ENCLOSED OUTLET TYPICAL II / I 1
| |
| I I STAIRWAY I 1 I
| |
| r I I 1
| |
| I
| |
| / 72"HOT WATER ELECTRICAL r
| |
| /
| |
| r I
| |
| /
| |
| 1 I
| |
| INLET TYPICAL
| |
| //
| |
| 1 1 I I BUILDING r/
| |
| //
| |
| J OPEN STAIRV(AY NO. I OPEN CW-CT- IA
| |
| !
| |
| STAIRWAY OVERFLOW WEIR / / /
| |
| ELECTRICAL BUILDING N0.2- /
| |
| // J r ' r
| |
| ! /
| |
| / / / OVERFLOW WEIR
| |
| / I 1 1
| |
| I / I I
| |
| I I II
| |
| '1 I
| |
| 1 I
| |
| I
| |
| / / I ENCLOSED STAIRWAY r EQUIPMENT ACCESS I 1 I
| |
| 'l I
| |
| /r '1
| |
| \
| |
| I I r RAMP-TYPICAL CENTUM -I 1 I I (PCATUM I 1 I I I 1
| |
| .J I I I
| |
| //
| |
| 'I rI r I I
| |
| l ENCLOSED
| |
| 'I ENCLOSED I \ l \
| |
| STAIRWAY STAIRWAY I I I I I 1
| |
| 1 I / I II
| |
| \ I II / / I PAVEMENT AND ROAD r /
| |
| CW-CT-IC
| |
| //
| |
| SYSTEM. CW-CT-2 C / 1 r/
| |
| OVERFLOW WEIR 230'-0" I85'-0 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM MECHANICAL DRAFZ COOLING TOWERS WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO ~ 2 PZOT PLAN r Envirormental Report FIG. 3.4-1
| |
| | |
| 0 0 90 MAXIMUM EXPECTED BLOWDOWN TEMPERATURE BASED ON S R 1973 DATA 85 I
| |
| I 80 l
| |
| g 75 DESIGN ~ I VALUES I 70 MAXIM WET BULB TEMPERATURE 00 MEAS ED IN SUMMER 1973 I
| |
| I I
| |
| 60 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 0
| |
| WET BULB TEMPERATURE, F WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM COOLING TOWER PERFORMANCE CURVE WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 Environmental Report, FIG. 3.4-3
| |
| | |
| EVAPORATION, 18 BLOWDOWN s DRIFT RATE 16 EVAPORATION RATE c 5 o
| |
| i4 O 00 80 10 B LOWDOWN TEMP.
| |
| 70 NORMAL RIVER TEMP.
| |
| BLOWDOWN DIFFUSER EX IT VELOCITY w 0 50 Q H M ON 0P 4I P
| |
| BLOWDOWN FLOW RATE 40 J F M A M iT J A S 0 N D MONTHS WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM MONTHLY AVERAGE WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 FLOW RATES AND TEMPERATURES Environmental Report FIG. 3.4-4
| |
| | |
| I~
| |
| ' ~
| |
| ~ ~ QI II.
| |
| ~ I ~ ~
| |
| ~ IJ I I~ ~ ~
| |
| II ~
| |
| ~ II 1
| |
| | |
| t 2 OO
| |
| .l5'0d.55 x l L
| |
| Or OPLQAllgg Pl
| |
| ~
| |
| CLDQS 0'"
| |
| lPLT OO
| |
| 'l 5
| |
| 0 6< 'lSO 55 W
| |
| E D QA A
| |
| P AN- 324-0 "A V ELSE.0 QMP 005~i
| |
| .fL 50LO Lll~ 0 PC I WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, MAKE-UP WATER PUMPHOUSE PUMPPlf FLOOR fL5t450 ~ ~
| |
| WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 PLAN jQK) SECTIC6S Envirormental Report A-A FIG. 3.4-6 1
| |
| | |
| 0 pip
| |
| | |
| MIN. LOW WATER EL.SOI.T3 I
| |
| ~LIFTINa LUS 42 4 tERFORATCD 6USSLEIL OUTER Pltt (TYP)
| |
| Pi PE 36 > INTERNAL PERFORATED PIPE (TYP)
| |
| RI V CR SOT TOM p
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ROCK Rl ~ RAP
| |
| 'I SUPPORT tILCS (TY1)~
| |
| 36 t I'll'C SECTION B- B N IE,ISO' SU66LER I'IPC (RtMOTC tLCVATIONSENSOR 36 S ~ Itt~ ~
| |
| 42 4 Ttt SECTION 42 F PERFORATED ROCK RIP RAP MIN LOW WATER CL 341~73 PI FC EL. 340.93 tL.341.30 42 t PERFORATED OUTCR PIPE M SLOPES DOWN LIFTINO LUO 0
| |
| 0 RIVCR I 6 MIN. QSOTTOM 34 ~ PIPE C IC,%SO 42 F PERFORATtD Pltt ~ ~
| |
| I\OCK RIP RAP L( u i' u v LI 4'2 4 PERFORATED OUTtR PIPE SUPPORT tlLES (TYt)
| |
| C' !
| |
| I 36 ~ PIPC RIVER I l x I 4'2 F PERFORATED
| |
| .PIPE. SECTION A-A 3O Oi FIGHT PLAN MSHINGTON PUBLIC POMER SUPPLY SYSTEM PERPORATED INTAKE PLAN WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO ~ 2 AND SECTIONS Environmental Report 3.4-7
| |
| | |
| O
| |
| 'Q l0
| |
| )
| |
| d) 9 4J a
| |
| C 0)
| |
| ~
| |
| C
| |
| ~
| |
| 5-ROM TH EXTE NAL SC EEN SU FACE E
| |
| O EXTER L SCR EN SUR ACE 3
| |
| O 8" C~ P 3
| |
| ~
| |
| 2
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| C O 3 4 INT RNAI LEEVE CI EO 0
| |
| O '
| |
| I 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 lo Flow velocity in ft/s.
| |
| Q 25,000 GPM (u.s.)
| |
| Q > l2,500 GPM (U.S.)
| |
| WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM PERFORATED PIPE INTAKE WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 DISTANCE VS. INTAKE FLOW VELOCITIES Environmental Report FIG. 3-4"8
| |
| | |
| ~O 0
| |
| O 7.2 jo I J Z
| |
| LIJ 0
| |
| O I I I 62% I UJ lai I 1 CC M
| |
| 4J I 'z W O bJ hl LIJ 4J Vl K
| |
| JJJ R
| |
| bJ O J R
| |
| Q.
| |
| C5 6.lo/o O I 1 O I O 1 I
| |
| th I Ol J I I ll I I I-l 72go I
| |
| e e a w e e o
| |
| co o
| |
| w o o 6 o o cv o o cv.
| |
| o o o" r.o no NI o
| |
| r co 6 o o o
| |
| FIGHT Velocity in ft/s. Velocity in ft/s.
| |
| PERFORATED P IPE INTAKE VELOCITY WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION 3/8" AWAY FROM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 SCREEN SURFACE Environmental Report 3.4-9
| |
| | |
| 4IC 333'O O
| |
| tA- 0 II I4 4 ~I~4 I3,043'OCK RI ~ RAR 0 o PLAN MIII, LOW WATCR CL,3AI~T3
| |
| ~CL. 334,TO RIVCR 4OTTOM
| |
| ~ROCK Rlt RAR
| |
| ~ORAVtL 4I4'II ~ IRC SECTION A - A Amendment 5, July 1981 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 SZOZ DISCRETE Environmental Report FIG 3. 4-10
| |
| ~
| |
| | |
| 0 WNP-2 ER 3.5 RADWASTE SYSTEMS AND SOURCE TERM 3.5.1 Source Term 3.5.1.1 General The source terms for both normal operation and anticipated operational occurrences are based on a noble gas release rate of 60,000 pCi/sec after 30 minutes decay as detailed in ANS Standard N237, "Source Term Specification."'(1)
| |
| Estimates of release rates to the environment followed the guidance in the Draft Regulatory Guide "Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Boiling Water Reactors (BWR's)."(2) Where guidance is not provided (e.g., fuel pool concentrations) reliance is placed on reported measurements. Improved fuel cladding integrity may result in lower releases than those indicated by measure-ments on early plants.
| |
| Reference is made to other subsections of Section 3.5 and to the SAR where appropriate.
| |
| 3.5.1.2 Noble Gas Leaka e Rates From Fuel For normal operation, the average source terms for the environ-mental release are based on a total noble gas leakage rate from the fuel of 60,000 pCi/sec (after 30 min decay) . This leakage rate is based on the recommendations in the proposed ANS N-237 standard on source terms.( ) Table 3.5-1 shows concentrations in units of pCi/g of steam at the reactor vessel steam nozzle, i.e., at decay time t = 0. Multiplication by the steam flow rate, 1.8 x 106 g/sec yields the release rate in pCi/sec.
| |
| Table 3.5-2 lists the calculated radionuclide release rates at t = 0 and t = 30 min decay. The latter is the rate at t = 0 multiplied by the decay factor e ~t at t = 30 min.
| |
| 3.5.1.3 Halocaens The equilibrium concentrations in the reactor water and steam at the reactor exit nozzles for computing average source terms are shown in Table 3.5-3. The iodine carryover fraction from reactor water to steam is taken as 0.02.(
| |
| 3.5.1.4 Other Fission Products and Corrosion Products The other fission product and corrosion product source terms are shown in Table 3.5-4 (fission products) and Table 3.5-5 (corrosion products). The carryover gg~ction from reactor water to the steam is taken as 0.001.
| |
| '.
| |
| 5-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 3.5.1.5 Water Activation Products The water activation products used in the source term calcu-lations are shown in Table 3.5-6.
| |
| : 3. 5. l. 6 Tritium Xn a BWR, tritum is formed from:
| |
| : l. the fissioning of uranium within the fuel,
| |
| : 2. neutron reactions with boron in the control rods, and
| |
| : 3. activation of naturally-occuring deuterium in the primary coolant.
| |
| The tritium concentration in the reactor coolant is taken as 1 x 10 2 pci/g of water or steam. <1)
| |
| The tritium released annually in liquid waste is estimated to be 0.01 pCi/ml from reference 2.
| |
| The tritium released through the building ventilation system is listed on Table 3.5-21. The principal sources are the equip-ment and valve leakages from the turbine and reactor buildings.
| |
| The sources of leakage from individual valves, pumps and other types of equipment, are each too small to detect. Release estimates are therefore based on measurements made at opera-ting plants.
| |
| 3.5.1.7 Source Terms for Fuel Pool The 376,000 gallon fuel pool is provided with a cooling and cleanup system to minimize the release of fission products, activation products and tritium to the reactor building envi-ronment. The cleanup system, through filtration and ion exchange, removes fission and activation products from the coolant while the cooling system minimizes evaporation of the tritum bearing water. Exposure of personnel to airborne radioactive material is further reduced by the placement of ventilation exhaust ducts around the periphery of the fuel pool and reactor well.
| |
| The fuel cooling and cleanup system consists of two circula-ting pumps, two heat exchangers, two filter demineralizers and two skimmer surge tanks together with the required piping, valves and instrumentation. The pumps circulate the pool water in a closed loop, taking suction from the surge tanks, circulating the water through the heat exchangers and filters, and discharging it through diffusers at the bottom of the fuel pool and reactor well. The water flows from the pool surface through scuppers and skimmer weirs to the surge tanks.
| |
| : 3. 5-2
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The flow diagrams for the fuel pool cooling and cleanup system and the fuel pool ventilation system are Figures 3.5-13 and 3.5-9 respectively.
| |
| The Bureau of Radiological Health reports concentrations measured at Dresden 1 for normal operating conditions. These results are listed in Table 3.5-7.
| |
| Data on air conditions above the pool are limited. Since the radionuclide concentration in the air above the fuel pool is speculative, the total releases from the reactor building are taken as a better value and include the contribution from the fuel pool.
| |
| 3.5.1.8 Releases from Buildin Ventilation S stems Estimates of radioactive releases from ventilation systems are based on measurements of releases at operating boiling water reactors. The measurements and calculations used are those detailed in reference 2 and are summarized below.
| |
| 3.5.1.8.1 Reactor and Containment Buildin s Measurements at nine boiling water reactors indicated that the average Iodine-131 release rate during normal operation was 0.11 curies per year. Measurements of Iodine-131 released from two of the plants during outages indicated an average ratio of Total I-131 released to I-131 released during normal operation of 3:1. The ratio (3:1) of total release/operating release was multiplied by the average of operating release rates (O.ll Ci/yr) to obtain the expected total I-131 release rate. Iodine-133 release's were calculated using the ratio of I-133/I-131,in the reactor coolant.
| |
| The estimated noble gas release is the average of values measured at two operating boiling water reactors.
| |
| Estimated releases of particulates are also based on measure-ments at operating boiling water reactors; however, the values are adjusted to reflect an 80% plant capacity factor.
| |
| Of the 20% downtime, 60 days are assumed to be long term outages (one week or more) while the remaining 13 days are short term shutdowns.
| |
| Because of the differences in containment design between the measured plants and the WNP-2 design, the estimated releases were equally divided between the reactor building and contain-ment. Appropriate decontamination factors were then assigned to the containment releases to .account for the effect of the standby gas treatment system.
| |
| : 3. 5-3
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Estimated releases from the reactor building and containment are listed in Table 3.5-8.
| |
| 3.5.1.8.2 Turbine Buildin Releases of radioactive iodines, noble gases and particulates were estimated in the manner described for the reactor build-ing. Estimated values are contained in Table 3.5-9.
| |
| 3.5.1.8.3 Radwaste Buildin Radwaste building releases were also based on measurements at operating plants and calculated in the manner described for the reactor building. Credit is taken, however, for HEPA filters located in the ventilation exhaust which considerably reduce the particulate releases from this source. Expected release rates are listed in Table 3.5-10.
| |
| 3.5.1.9 Releases from Mechanical Vacuum Pum Estimates of radioactive releases via the mechanical vacuum pump are based on measurements made at two operating plants as detailed in reference 2. It is assumed that the mechani-cal vacuum pump is operated for 24 hours during each of four shutdowns per year. Expected release rates are contained in Table 3.5-11.
| |
| 3.'5.1.10 Releases from Gland Seal Exhauster Because non-radioactive steam is used in the turbine gland seal system, it is expected that particulate and noble gas releases will be less than one curie per year and that iodine released will be less than 10 4 curies per year.
| |
| 3.5.1.11 Answers to A endix 3 Questions a0 Q Plant capacity factor A: 80%
| |
| : b. Isotope release rates of noble gases to the reactor coolant and at 30 minutes decay, (pCi/sec)
| |
| A: See Table 3.5-2 c ~ Qe Concentration of fission products in the reactor coolant, pCi/g.
| |
| See Table 3.5-4
| |
| : d. Concentrations of corrosion and water activa-tion products in the reactor coolant, pCi/g A: See Tables 3.5-5 and 3.5-6, respectively
| |
| : 3. 5-4
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER
| |
| : e. Q: Tritium release rate A: Annual average taken as
| |
| ~ 025 Cl/Mwt x 3300 Mwt 3.15 x 10 7 sec/yr 2 /
| |
| : 2. Q: The maximum core thermal power (MWt) evaluated for safety considerations in the SAR 33 23 MWt
| |
| : 3. Q
| |
| ~
| |
| The total steam flow, lb/hr A: 1.43 x 107 lb/hr
| |
| : 4. Q-':
| |
| The mass (lbs) of primary coolant in the reactor vessel 5.53 x 105 lbs at normal water level.
| |
| : 5. a ~ Qo The average flow rate through the reactor coolant cleanup demineralizer 133,000 lb/hr at temperature = 533 F and enthalpy = 527.5 Btu/lb with both deminerali-zers in operation
| |
| : b. The type of resins used Powdex, strong base anion and strong acid
| |
| 'cation c ~ Qo The DF's used for the cleanup demineralizer A Anion 10 Cs, Rb 2 Other 10
| |
| : 6. Q: The total mass (lb) of uranium and plutonium in an equilibrium core (metal weight)
| |
| A: .For Uranium cycle, 15,000 MWD/T U = 136.4 Tonne Pu = 0.8 Tonne For Plutonium cycle U = 134.9 Tonne Pu = 1.4 Tonne
| |
| : 7. Q: The percent enrichment of uranium in reload fuel A: Uranium cycle: 2.4 2.8%
| |
| Plutonium cycle: 2.4%
| |
| : 8. Q: The percent of fissile plutonium in reload fuel A: Uranium cycle: 0.51%
| |
| Plutonium cycle: 0.62%
| |
| : 3. 5-5
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER
| |
| : 9. a0 The regeneration frequency (days) for the condensate demineralizers A: These are powder type demineralizers which are backwashed every 14 days
| |
| : b. Q- The type of resins used A: Powdex
| |
| : c. Q: The DF's used in the evaluation for the condensate demineralizer A: Anion 10; Cs, Rb 2; Other 10
| |
| : 10. Q: The flow rate (gpm) of water used to dilute liquid waste prior to discharge A: 2500 6500 gpm ll. Q: The input sources, average flow rates and activities of the wastes processed through the high purity waste system A 18,380 GPD at 0.213 x Primary Coolant Activity Q'- Description of the system used to process the high purity waste. The process flow diagram for the high purity waste system, indicating all decon-tamination factors used in the evaluation A: See Section 3.5.2 for description and flow diagram:
| |
| DF for Iodine = 1000 DF for Cesium = 20 DF for other nuclides = 1000
| |
| : 13. Q: The high purity waste holdup times used in the evaluation and the fraction of the processed stream expected to be discharged over the life of the plant. The capacities (gal) of all tanks con-sidered in calculating the holdup time A: See Section 3.5.2 for tank capacities:
| |
| Collection time = 0.435 days Process time = 0.0617 days Fraction discharged = 0.01
| |
| : 14. Q: The input sources, average flow rates (gpd) and activities (fraction of Primary Coolant Activity) of wastes processed through the low purity waste system.
| |
| A: 5700 GPD at 0.132 x Primary Coolant Activity 3.5-6
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Description of the system used to process the low purity waste. The process flow diagram for the low purity waste system, indicating all of the decontamination factors used in the evaluation See Section '3.'5.2 for description and flow diagram:
| |
| DF for Iodine = 1000 DF for Cesium = 4 DF for other nuclides = 1000 The low purity waste holdup times used in the evaluation and the fraction of the processed stream, expected to be discharged over the life of the plant. The capacities (gal) of all tanks considered in calculating the holdup times See Section 3.5.2 for tank capacities:
| |
| Collection time = 1.403 days Process time = 0.0617 days Fraction discharged = 0.10 The input sources, average flow rates (gpd) and activities (fraction of PCA) of water processed through the chemical waste GPD at, 0.02 x Primary Coolant system'400 Activity Description of the system used to process the chemical waste. The process flow diagram for the chemical waste system, indicating all decontamina-tion factors used in the evaluation See Section 3.5.2 for description and flow diagram:
| |
| DF for Iodine = 10,000 DF for Cesium = 10,000 DF for other nuclides = 10,000 The chemical waste holdup times used in the evalua-tion and the fraction of the processed stream expected to be discharged over the life of the plant. The capacities (gal) of all tanks considered in calculating the holdup times See Section 3.5.2 for tank capacities:
| |
| Collection time = 8.571 days Process time = 0.833 days Fraction discharged = 0.10 The stream leakage rate (lb/hr) to the turbine building considered in the evaluation. Descrip-tion of special design features used to reduce steam leakage and the fraction of iodine released.
| |
| If ventilation air is treated through charcoal adsorbers, the bed depth and the iodine decon-tamination factor used.
| |
| 3.5-7
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Steam leakage estimates were not used in evalua-tion of turbine building releases. Release estimates are based on measurements made at operat-ing plants as detailed in reference 2 There are no special treatment provisions for turbine building exhaust air.
| |
| The steam flow (lb/hr) to the turbine gland seal and the source of the steam.
| |
| The total sealing steam flow to all turbines is 28,000 lb/hr of non-radioactive steam.
| |
| The mass of steam (lb) in the reactor vessel 21,801 lbs during operation The design holdup time (hrs) for gases vented from the gland seal condenser, the iodine parti-tion factor for the condenser and the fraction of iodine released through the system vent. Descrip-tion of the treatment system used to reduce the iodine releases from the gland seal system There is no design holdup time for gases vented from the gland seal condenser. The gland seal steam is clean steam rather than process steam; see Question-Answer 21 above The primary coolant leakage rate (lb/day) to the reactor building, the temperature of the coolant and the iodine partition factor used in calcu-lating releases from the reactor building in the evaluation Coolant leakage to the reactor building is not used in evaluation of reactor building releases. Release estimates are based on measurements made at operat-ing plants given in reference 2 Description of the treatment provided for the reactor building ventilation air to reduce iodine prior to discharge. The decontamination factor and the bed depth of the charcoal adsorber used in the evaluation See Section 3.5.3.3.2'he holdup time (min) for off-gases for the main condenser air ejector prior to processing by the off-gas treatment system.
| |
| The holdup time is in excess of 10 minutes during normal operation
| |
| : 3. 5-8
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Description and expected performance of the gaseous waste treatment system of the off-gases from the condenser air ejector. The expected air inleakage per condenser shell, the number of condenser shells and the -iodine partition factor for the condenser.
| |
| There is one condenser shell which is divided into three chambers, each at its own pressure. The total expected air inleakage is 30 cfm for the entire system. See Section 3.5.3.2 for details The mass of charcoal in the charcoal delay system used to treat the off-gases from the main condenser air ejector, the operating temperature of the delay system and the dynamic adsorption coefficient for Xe and Kr, based on the system design used in calcu-lating the respective holdup times.
| |
| The operating temperature is 0 F. The mass of char-coal in the system is approximately 24.6 tons.
| |
| The dynamic adsorption coefficients used in calcu-lating holdup times are 105 cm /g for Kr and 2410 cm3/g for Xe Description of cryogenic distillation system, frac-tion of gases partitioned during distillation, holdup in system storage following distillation and expected system leakage Not applicable inputs to the solid waste system: volumes, curie contents and sources of wastes. Principal radio-nuclides, on-site storage times prior to shipment.
| |
| Description of solid waste processing systems See Section 3.5.4 Sources, flow rates (gpd) and activities of deter-gent wastes. Description of treatment processes, volumes of holdup tanks and decontamination factors used in the evaluation See Section 3.5.4. Note: No on-site laundry Process and instrumentation diagrams for liquid, gaseous and solid radwaste systems and all other systems influencing the source term calculations.
| |
| See Figures 3.5-1 to 3.5-11.
| |
| Process and instrumentation diagrams for fuel pool cooling and purification 'systems and for fuel pool ventilation system. Provide the volume of the fuel pool and refueling canals, identify the sources
| |
| : 3. 5-9
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER of makeup water and describe the management of water inventories during refueling. Provide an analysis of the concentration of radioactive materials in the fuel pool water following refuel-ing and calculate the releases of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents due to evaporation from the surface of the fuel pool and refueling canals during refueling and during normal power operation. Provide the basis for the values used See Section 3.5.1.7
| |
| '3.5.2 Li uid Radwaste S stem
| |
| : 3. 5. 2. 1 General The liquid radwaste system is composed of a group of sub-systems designed to collect, control, process, handle, store, recycle and dispose of liquid radioactive wastes generated as a result of normal operation and anticipated operational occurrences. These subsystems and the classification of wastes that, these systems process are as follows:
| |
| a ~ Equipment drains subsystem processes high purity wastes. These wastes have a normal conductivity level less than 50 who/cm and a radioactivity level less than 10 pCi/cc.
| |
| : b. Floor drain subsystem processes intermediate purity wastes. These wastes typically have a higher conductivity level than equipment drains but have a lower radioactivity level on the order of 10-7 to, 10 pCi/cc.
| |
| c ~ Chemical waste subsystem processes low purity wastes. These wastes are of such high conductivity so as to preclude treatment by ion exchange.
| |
| The radioactivity concentrations are variable and substantially affected by chemical cleaning and decontamination solutions.
| |
| These systems are discussed in Subsections 3.5.2.2 through
| |
| : 3. 5. 2. 5, respectively.
| |
| The water that is generated from liquid waste processing is recycled for plant reuse to the maximum extent practical.
| |
| Excess water is discharged from the plant to maintain an overall plant water balance. Excess water is discharged to the cooling tower blowdown line which is, in turn, dis-charged to the river. Table 3.5-12 lists the estimated
| |
| : 3. 5-10
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER radionuclide concentrations that are discharged to the river cooling tower blowdown line. The concentrations listed were estimated using the methods and parameters of the GALE Code detailed .in reference 2. The parameters used in this evalua-
| |
| 'ion are not neces'sarily the same values used for design.
| |
| Design basis values for the equipment decontamination factors are listed in Table 3.5-13. These factors are defined as the ratio of the input radioactivity concentration to the output concentration.
| |
| The liquid radwaste system equipment is designed for a maximum of 150 psig and 150oF operation. Collection and storage tanks are vented to the radwaste building exhaust system. The mixed bed demineralizers, precoat filters and concentrators are con-tained within pressure vessels. The quality classification for the system is in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.26.
| |
| The liquid radwaste system is essentially a manual-start, auto-matic stop process. Process and radiation instrumentation allows for the initiation of batch processing from the Radwaste Control Room area or local operation areas. Inputs to the various subsystems originate from both occasional unscheduled sources such as sumps and from scheduled events such as process equipment flushing.
| |
| The portions of the radwaste and control building which are Seismic Category I are the radwaste area for El. 437'-0" to El. 467'-0" and the vertical portion of the building encompas-sing the area of the control room. The remainder of the building is Seismic Category II.
| |
| A process flow diagram, Figure 3.5-1, together with process data, Table 3.5-14, shows the tank capacities, system flow rates, design capacities of components, holdup times and total radionuclide inventories for the various radwaste subsystems.
| |
| Piping and instrumentation drawings of the subsystems with collection and discharge piping are shown in Figures 3.5-2 through 3.5-4.
| |
| 3.5.2.2 E i ment Drain Subs stem Descri tion The equipment drain subsystem collects and treats wastes from the following sources:
| |
| : a. Drywell equipment drain sump
| |
| : b. Reactor building equipment drain sump 3.5-11
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER
| |
| : c. Radwaste building equipment drain sump
| |
| : d. Turbine building equipment drain sump
| |
| : e. Reactor water cleanup system
| |
| : f. Residual heat removal system
| |
| : g. Cleanup phase separators (Decant water only)
| |
| : h. Fuel pool seal rupture drains
| |
| : i. Condensate phase separators (Decant water only)
| |
| Table 3.5-15 lists the quantity from each of the above sources that are processed in this system.
| |
| The wastes from these sources are pumped or drained into the waste collector tank. The waste collector tank contents are pumped through the waste collector filter and waste deminerali-zer to the waste sample tanks where the liquid is monitored prior to release to the condensate tanks or the cooling tower blowdown line or recirculated for further processing.
| |
| (See Figure 3.5-2) ln the event, of a component malfunction within the equipment drain subsystem, sufficient -crossties are provided to the floor drain collector subsystem to permit continued processing of the wastes. Sufficient capacity is provided in the equip-ment to handle such conditions.
| |
| : 3. 5. 2.3 Floor Drain Subs stem Descri tion The floor drain subsystem collects and treats wastes from the following sources:
| |
| a ~ Drywell floor drain sump
| |
| : b. Reactor building floor drain sumps c Radwaste building floor drain sumps
| |
| : d. Turbine building floor drain sumps
| |
| : e. Waste sludge phase separator
| |
| : 3. 5-12
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The wastes from these sources are pumped into the floor drain collector tank. Table 3.5-16 lists the quantity from each of the above sources that is processed by this system. The-floor drain collector tank contents are pumped through the floor drain collector filter and the floor drain demineralizer to the floor drain sample tank. Here the fluid is sampled prior to discharge to the condensate storage tank or the cool-ing tower blowdown line. (See Figure 3.5-3)
| |
| Similar to the equipment drain subsystem, the floor drain sub-system normlly functions as an independent process string.
| |
| Xntersystem crossties are provided with the equipment drain subsystem to allow continued processing of floor drain wastes.
| |
| 3.5.2.4 Chemical Waste Subs stem Descri tion The chemical waste subsystem collects and treats wastes from the following sources:
| |
| : a. Detergent. drains
| |
| : b. . Shop decontamination solutions c ~ Reactor, turbine and radwaste building decontamina-tion drains
| |
| : d. Low purity wastes from either the equipment or floor drain subsystems
| |
| : e. Chemical cleaning solutions from filter deminerali-zer units
| |
| : f. Battery room drains
| |
| : g. Chemical system overflows and tank drains
| |
| : h. Laboratory drains
| |
| : i. Chemical waste sump (radwaste building)
| |
| The quantities from the above sources are listed in Table 3.5-17. These wastes are collected in the chemical waste tank. The contents of this tank are recirculated through a mixing eductor in the tank. During recircula-tion, the fluid is sampled and a neutralizing solution is added as required from one of the chemical addition tanks.
| |
| 3.5-13
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Samples are taken and the liquid is if a pumped to the neutral solution is indicated, decontamination solution con-centrator. The 'concentrator bottoms are blown to one of the decontamination solution concentrated waste tanks.
| |
| From here, the concentrator bottoms are pumped to the decontamination solution concentrator waste measuring tank. This tank admits a pre-determined quantity of wastes for processing through the solidification system.
| |
| The concentrator distillate is condensed in the decontamina-tion solution condenser and stored in the distillate tanks The distillate is sampled and if the radioactivity level and water quality is acceptable, the distillate is pumped to the condensate storage tanks. If the radioactivity level or water quality is unacceptably high, the distillate is processed through the distillate polishing demineralizers or reprocessed through the decontamination solution concentrators.
| |
| It is resampled, and condensate storage if tanks.
| |
| acceptable, As with it the is pumped to the other subsystems, when condensate storage is not available, the purified liquid is sent to the cooling tower blowdown line (See Figure 3.5-4 for an illustration of this system).
| |
| Equipment reduncancy is provided in the chemical waste pro-cessing system to allow bypassing of any failed component.
| |
| Sufficient capacity is provided in the equipment to handle such conditions.
| |
| 3.5.2.5 Deter ent Wastes Detergent wastes are collected in the detergent drain tanks.
| |
| These wastes consist of primarily laboratory and decontam-ination solutions which contain detergent and laboratory wastes. Because of a tendency to foul ion exchange resins, these liquid radwastes are treated separately. They are filtered through the detergent drain filter prior to dis-charge to the chemical waste system for cleanup and recycling.
| |
| 3.5.2.6 Slu~qes Expended filter demineralizer ionCondensate exchange resins are removed filter deminerali-
| |
| ,,when necessary by backwashing.
| |
| zer resins are backwashed to the condensate backwash receiv-ing tank and pumped to the condensate phase separator tanks for processing. Reactor water cleanup system sludges are collected in the RWCU phase separators where excess backwash water is decanted to the waste collector tank. The remaining sludge is processed through the radwaste solids system.
| |
| 3.5-14
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The fuel pool filter demineralizer, waste collector and floor drain filters are backwashed to the waste sludge phase separa-tor tank. The accumulated resins and sludges are processed through the solid radwaste system after a suitable decay period. The processing system for these sludges and resins is described in Section 3.5.4.
| |
| 3.5.3 Gaseous Radwaste S stem 3.5.3.1 General The gaseous radwaste system is designed to process and control the release of gaseous radioactive effluents to the site environs so that the radiation dose to off-site persons is "as low as practicable" as defined in 10CFR50, Appendix Z.
| |
| Gaseous effluents that are released to the off-site environs emanate from the following sources:
| |
| a ~ effluent released from the off-gas treatment system,
| |
| : b. effluent released from the ventilation system in the various buildings, and c ~ effluent released from the mechanical vacuum pump.
| |
| 3.5.3.2 Off-Gas Treatment S stem 3.5.3.2.1 General The off-gas system can be divided into the following subsystems:
| |
| a~ Recombiner subsystem
| |
| : b. Condensing-moisture separator subsystem c ~ Cooler condenser-glycol subsystem
| |
| : d. Filter subsystem
| |
| : e. Desiccant dryer regeneration system Activated carbon refrigeration-adsorption subsystem
| |
| : 3. 5-15
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Each of these are discussed in Subsections 3.5.3.2.2 to 3.5.3.2.7.
| |
| The source of radioactive gases is the steam jet air ejec-tors which remove main condenser noncondensible gases during plant operation. The condenser off-gas contains both fission product gases which leak through the reactor fuel element cladding as well as the coolant activation gases. The acti-vation gases result from the irradiation of reactor coolant as it passes through the neutron field in the fuel portion of the core in the reactor vessel. The production of these gases is dependent upon the reactor power level rather than the amount of leakage in the fuel cladding. Condenser off-gas activity is principally due to N-16, 0-19 and N-13.
| |
| The N-16 and 0-19 have very short half-lives (secs) and decay rapidly, whereas N-13, with a ten (10) minute half-life, is only present in small amounts. The condenser off-gas contains radioactive noble gases including daughter products of these nuclides. The concentration of noble gases depends on the amount of tramp uranium present and any fuel element defects which exist.
| |
| The source terms for the off-gas treatment system are based on the average noble gas release rate of 60,000 pCi/sec after 30 minutes decay (See Subsection 3.5.1). The system has a design basis of 100,000 pCi/sec with the capability of processing 300,000 pCi/sec of noble gases activity without affecting the delay time of the noble gases. Based on a condenser air inleakage of 30 scfm, the charcoal system will present a residence time delay for krypton of at least 46- hours and a xenon residence delay time of at least 42 days.
| |
| The off-gas system's first processing function is to catalytically recombine radiolytically produced hydrogen and oxygen. The off-gas is then cooled to approximately 130 F to remove condensibles, and in the process, reduce the mass of gas per unit volume. The remaining non-condensible gas, which consists primarily of air plus trace concentrations of krypton-xenon, is delayed in the ten (10) minute holdup system. The gas is cooled to 45 F and filtered through a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter. The gas is then pas8ed through a desiccant dry8r that reduces its dewpoint to
| |
| -90 F and then is chilled to 0 F. Charcoal adsorption beds, operating in a refrigerated vault at about 0 0 F, selectively adsorb-and delay the trace quantities of xenon and krypton in the bulk carrier gas. The refrigeration system of the 3.5-16
| |
| | |
| WNP.-2 ER charcoal adsorber vault is designed with sufficient flexi-bility to maintain the vault temperature down to -40 F.
| |
| After this delay, the gas is then passed through a HEPA filter and then discharged to the environment through the reactor building elevated release point.
| |
| Radioiodine is present in reactor steam and, to a small extent, carries over through the condensation and filtration stages of the off-gas system. Removal of off-gas train iodine, however, is virtually complete in passage of the process gas through granular activated carbon. Thus, the radioactive noble gases control the release rate of gaseous wastes from the off-gas system.
| |
| Figure 3.5-5 shows a schematic of the process flow diagram for the system. Table 3.5-18 lists the process data which apply to this system. The process and instrumentation diagrams are given in Figures 3.5-6 and 3.5-7.
| |
| The release rate of the noble gas isotopes into the atmosphere are listed in Table 3.5-20.
| |
| 3.5.3.2.2 Recombiner Subs stem During plant operation, the steam jet air ejector removes the non-condensible gases from the main condenser, provides the motive pressure at the inlet to the off-gas system, and dilutes the hydrogen present in the off-gas with steam to maintain the maximum hydrogen concentration less than four percent by volume at all power levels. The actual hydrogen concentration in the effluent gas to and from the recombiner is much below the four percent level.
| |
| The 'off-gas effluent from the air ejectors is directed to the recombiner preheater. Of these, there are two 100 percent capacity units, with one of the units on standby service.
| |
| II The recombiner preheater raises the off-gas temperature to approximately 350oF to allow efficient catalytic recombiner operation Xn the recombiner, the gas temperature increases up to 850oF due to the heat of formation of water and this further improves recombiner efficiency. At the outlet of the recombiner, a hydrogen analyzer monitors the hydrogen concentration and inititates alarms at abnormal hydrogen levels.
| |
| 3.5-17
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 3.5.3.2.3 Condensin Subs stem The off-gas condenser is utilized to cool and condense the recombiner effluent and reduce entrained water vapor from the off-gas stream. The effluent noncondensible gases are then directed to the water separator where water droplets are removed. From the water additional'ntrained separator, the off-gas is routed to the holdup line, which is designed to provide lag storage of the off-gas for at least ten (10) minutes at, the design flow rate. From 'here the off-gas stream is routed to one of the two 100 percent capacity cooler condensers. The second unit remains on standby service. In the cooler condenser, the off-gas is further cooled to a lower dewpoint temperature to remove more condensibles. Upon leaving the cooler condenser, the off-gas stream is discharged to one of the moisture separators. There are two 100 percent units with one unit on standby service. In the moisture separator, additional entrained moisture is removed. From here the off-gas stream is routed to the filter-dryer subsystem.
| |
| 3.5.3.2.4 Filter-Dr er Subs stem The off-gas stream effluent from the moisture separator is directed to one of the two 100 percent capacity HEPA pre-filters. These filters are of the high efficiency form absolute type particulate filters which remove particulate radio-nuclides. Based on DOP tests, the filter elements remove at least 99.97 percent of particles larger than 0.3 micron in diameter. Gas leaving the prefilter is directed through a disiccant dryer to further reduce the dewpoint level to reduce the competition of water for adsorption sites on the charcoal beds. There are four desiccant dryer units arranged in two independent trains as described in Subsection 3.5.3.2.7. Thus, while regeneration is being performed on one of the trains, the dryers in the second train are avail-able in the process system, one of. which acts as a standby unit. Each of the four dryers is capable of drying the process gas stream to -90 F dewpoint. From the dryer train,
| |
| -the off-gas stream is directed to the refrigerated adsorption subsystem.
| |
| 3.5.3.2.5 Refri crated Adsor tion Subs stem Off-gas effluent from the desiccant dryers under normal operation flows through one of the four off-gas coolers which are each designed to cool the process gas stream to 0 F. From the cooler the gas passes to one of the two banks of charcoal adsorbers. There are four adsorber 3.5-18
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER vessels in each of the banks. From two of the coolers, the gas stream is directed to the first vessel of each bank of adsorbers. The remaining two coolers are arranged so that one of the coolers feeding each bank of adsorbers can bypass the first adsorber in each bank in the event of the presence of excess moisture in that adsorber vessel. The gas stream effluent from the last unit of each bank is routed to one of the two afterfilters. Each of the afterfilters is capable of treating 100 percent of the normal process gas flow, thus one unit is in the standby condition. The afterfilters are of the HEPA high efficiency moisture resistant absolute particulate type. Particulate daughter products and charcoal fines are removed by the afterfilter before the gas is monitored for radiation level prior to being directed to the reactor building elevated release point and then is released to the atmosphere. This type of filter has better than 99 percent efficiency for particulates larger than 0.3 microns based on DOP tests.
| |
| The charcoal adsorbers provide selective adsorption of the xenon and krypton isotopes from the bulk gas (air) in the off-gas stream. Selective adsorption permits a major fraction of xenon and krypton isotopes to decay in place, thereby reducing activity releases to the atmosph re. The holdup time at design flow is in excess of 42 days for xenon and 46 hours for krypton gases as mentioned earlier.
| |
| The Kr and Xe holdup time is closely approximated by the following equation:
| |
| t=KM d F
| |
| Where:
| |
| holdup time of a given gas, (sec)
| |
| Kd dynamic adsorption coefficient for the given gas, (cm3/sec) weight of charcoal, (g) flow rate, (cm /sec) 3.5-19
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Dynamic adsorption coefficient values for xenon and krypton have been reported by several authors, including Browning.(
| |
| The off-gas charcoal adsorber vault is maintained at 0 F during normal plant operation by two independent, full capacity, closed loop, brine refrigeration systems. The re-frigeration system has been designed with sufficient flexi-bility to maintain the vault temperature-down to -40oF.
| |
| The off-gas charcoal adsorber vault refrigeration system is schematically shown in Figure 3.5-8.
| |
| During normal plant operation, one refrigeration system operates with the second system in standby mode. Each system consists of a rotary screw type liquid chiller, a centrifugal pump, two refrigeration fan coil units and associated piping, distribution ductwork and accessories.
| |
| 3.5.3.2.6 Gl col Subs stem This subsystem consists of three refrigeration machines through which a closed-type glycol system is fed. The cold glycol solution is pumped to the off-gas process stream's two cooler condensers described in Subsection 3.5.3.2.3 and the desiccant dryer's regenerative dryer chillers described in Subsection 3.5.3.2.7.
| |
| This subsystem consists of four desiccant beds in two independent trains, each train having a full set of regenera-tion equipment. The regeneration cycle uses only captive air from the off-gas process stream which is cooled in the dryer chiller, circulated by the regenerative blower and heated and dried by the dryer heater before being directed through the desiccant dryer being regenerated. Under normal operating conditions, a desiccant unit can be regenerated in a 12-hour period including cooldown.
| |
| The desiccant dryer regeneration system is also piped to allow its use in supplying relatively dry (45 F dewpoint),
| |
| heated (250 F) air at the rate of 250 cfm to be used in defrosting and drying the charcoal adsorber beds during the annual refueling outage, should gross moisture be present. Service air is utilized for this purpose and circulated through the regeneration system prior to being circulated through the charcoal adsorber beds.
| |
| 3.5-20
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 3.5.3.3 Buildin Ventilation 3.5.3.3.1 General The Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems that service the reactor, radwaste and turbine building are designed to the following performance objectives:
| |
| a ~ To provide fresh air and maintain appropriate temperature and humidity conditions for plant personnel and ecruipment.
| |
| : b. Control and monitor all potentially radioactive airborne releases from the plant to within the objectives of 10CFR50, Appendix I.
| |
| c ~ Control and limit airborne contaminants within the plant structures by inducing air flow from areas of low radiation potential to areas of high radiation potential.
| |
| : d. Maintain the various buildings at a negative pres-sure with respect to the atmosphere. This prevents the exfiltration of radioactive material.
| |
| Details of the HVAC system used in each building are discussed in the following paragraphs.
| |
| 3.5.3.3.2 Reactor Building The reactor building heating and ventilating system is schematically shown in Figure 3.5-9.
| |
| The system is basically a push-pull heating and ventilation system providing once-through air flow with no recirculation.
| |
| It consists of the following subsystems which can potentially release radioactive effluents.
| |
| Su 1 Air S stem The supply air system consists of a ventilation unit, air distribution ductwork, two isolation butterfly dampers on the fresh air intake and the associated controls. During normal plant operation and shutdown, the supply air system isolation dampers are open and the ventilation system operates continuously. This pxovides 100% outdoor air throughout the building.
| |
| 3.5-21
| |
| | |
| NNP-2 ER The reactor building supply air.system also provides makeup air to the primary containment during a primary containment purge. During purging, isolation valves in the supply purge duct to the primary containment are opened, and air is blown from the supply air system into the primary containment.
| |
| In the event of a reactor building isolation signal, the supply system ventilating unit stops and the two isolation dampers on the fresh air intake close. The signals which cause reactor building isolation are as follows:
| |
| : a. reactor vessel low water level,
| |
| : b. high drywell pressure, and
| |
| : c. high radiation level in the reactor building exhaust ventilation system.
| |
| Exhaust Air S stem The reactor building exhaust system draws air from all areas with radiation contamination potential and discharges the elevated release point. The elevated release point is it to located on the roof of the reactor building.
| |
| In the event of a primary containment purge, the exhaust air is discharged through the reactor building exhaust system or through the standby gas treatment system. Ducts connect the primary containment drywell and wetwell with reactor building exhaust system and standby gas treatment system. The reactor building exhaust system is normally used.
| |
| The standby gas treatment system is used to process building exhaust during an accident to maintain reactor building under negative pressure. It consists of two independent, full-size contains a demister which removes systems. Each system excess moisture, a prefilter which removes particulate matter present in the effluent, and electric heating coil to reduce the relative humidity of the air, a high efficiency particu-late air filter (HEPA) which is capable of removing 99.97%
| |
| of all particulate-matter which is 0.3 micron or larger in size, two activated charcoal iodine filters which remove 99%
| |
| of the iodine and an afterfilter. This equipment is listed in the order of air treatment. See Subsection 6.5 of the FSAR for further details.
| |
| 3.5-22
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Sum Vent Exhaust Filter S stem All potentially radioactive liquid leaks and/or spills in the reactor'uilding are channeled to the euqipment or floor drain system. In order to minimize the release of radio-active contaminants from the building, the drain system sumps and drain headers are maintained at a negative pressure and are vented through a filter system. The sump vent exhaust system is composed of two full-capacity, 1000 cfm filter units, each consisting of moisture separator, electric heater, HEPA filter, charcoal filter and fan. The units which draw air from the sumps and drain headers pass discharge it it through filters and into the main reactor building exhaust system upstream of the radiation monitoring instruments.
| |
| 3.5.3.3.3 Radwaste Buildin The radwaste building heating and ventilating system is schematically shown in Figure 3.5-10. The main system is a push-pull heating and ventilating system providing once-through air flow with no recirculation. In addition, indi-vidual air conditioning units are provided for all rooms which personnel will normally occupy for extended periods of time.
| |
| The main radwaste building supply air system consists of a supply ventilation unit and distribution ductwork. During normal plant operation, the supply unit operates continuously.
| |
| This provides fresh air throughout the building via the supply duct distribution system.
| |
| The radwaste building exhaust system is composed of three 50%
| |
| capacity exhaust filter units. Only two of these units are in operation at any one time. Each exhaust unit fan is pro-vided with an automatic air operated inlet vane for volume control. The inlet vanes are controlled by differential pressure controllers set to maintain the tank enclosures in the lower level of the radwaste building at a negative pres-sure with respect to the atmostphere.
| |
| All radwaste building exhaust air is processed by the exhaust units and monitored by radiation detectors prior to discharge.
| |
| The release point for the ventilation exhaust, is located on the roof of the radwaste building. All exhaust air is passed through HEPA filters prior to discharge, thus minimizing the release of radioactive particulates.
| |
| : 3. 5-23
| |
| | |
| WNP.-2 ER 3.5.3.3.4 Turbine Generator Buildin The heating and ventilation systems of the turbine generator building are schematically shown in Figure 3.5-11. The pri-mary system is a push-pull heating and ventilating system.
| |
| It consists of the following subsystems which can potentially release radioactive effluent.
| |
| Main Su 1 S stem The turbine generator building supply air system is composed of four supply ventilation units and distribution ductwork.
| |
| The units are operated in pairs, with one pair discharging into a common supply duct system servicing the west side of the building. The other pair supplies the east side of the building.
| |
| Each ventilation unit contains a centrifugal fan. This fan is furnished with automatic inlet vanes for fan capacity and control. These are used to control the air flow and to main-tain the turbine building at a negative pressure with respect to the atmosphere.
| |
| Automatic dampers are provided on the intake of each ventila-tion unit that permit the unit to draw either 100% outdoor air or 100% recirculation air from the turbine building. Recircu-lation is only performed in the event of a plant outage, when airborne contamination potential does not exist, to reduce building heating reauirements.
| |
| Main Exhaust S stem The main exhaust system consists of four roof-mounted cen-trifugal fans, all of which draw air from a central exhaust duct system. Three of the exhaust fans normally operate continuously with one fan as standby. Air flow through the operating fans is maintained at a 'constant rate by automatic volume dampers on the fan discharges.
| |
| Almost all exhaust air is drawn from the shielded areas of the turbine building where the potential for airborne radio-active contamination is highest. This induces flow from the cleaner areas. All exhaust air is monitored for radioactive contamination prior to discharge.
| |
| In the event that supply air to the turbine generator building is reduced, as during a plant outage, only one or two exhaust.
| |
| fans may be operated. Motor operated shut-off dampers are provided in all main branches of the exhaust duct system so that exhaust can be stopped on an area-by-area basis. Auto-matic volume dampers are provided in the exhaust system so 3.5-24
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER that full exhaust flow can be drawn from the shielded equip-ment vaults on the lower level of the turbine building when the exhaust system is operating at full capacity. These vaults house equipment with higher contamination potential such as the air ejectors and the off-gas system hydrogen recombiners.
| |
| 3.5.3.3.5 Effluent Released from Buildin Ventilation Flow rate, elevation, heat, content and description of the three release points are listed on Table 3.5-19.
| |
| Reactor Buildin The reactor building ventilation system supplies fresh air to the reactor building and exhausts air through the elevated release point. Table 3.5-21 lists the radionuclide concentra-tion in the reactor building effluent; basis for these values are discussed in 3.5.1.8.1.
| |
| The reactor building sumps are vented through a bank of HEPA and activated charcoal filters; however, no credit is taken for this sump vent treatment syst: em when calculating releases.
| |
| Turbine Buildin The turbine building ventilation system supplies fresh air to the various building areas and exhausts air to the atmos-phere. Table 3.5-21 lists the radionuclide concentration in the turbine building effluent. These values are based on measurements at operating plants as discussed in 3.5.1.8.2.
| |
| The turbine building sumps are vented through the ventila-tion system directly to the atmosphere. The contribution to the total building ventilation effluent is included in Table 3.5-21 values.
| |
| Radwaste Buildin Sources of gaseous radioactivity in the radwaste building include:
| |
| : a. Air ejector off-gas system leakage
| |
| : b. Liquid leakage to the radwaste building c ~ Hydropneumatic transfer of resins
| |
| : 3. 5-25
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Leakage of radioactive gases from the off-gas treatment system is limited by the use of welded piping connections where possible and bellows stem seals or equivalent for valving. The system operates at a maximum of 7 psig during startup and less than 2 psig during normal operation so that the differential pressure to cause leakage is small.
| |
| Liquid leakage, which is at ambient temperature, is retained in trenches, cells and concrete rooms and returned to the system for additional processing.
| |
| Any radioactivity displaced from filter precoats and bed resins during processing is routed to the building ventila-tion exhaust system and high efficiency filters.
| |
| Estimated radioactive material releases from the radwaste building ventilation exhaust are listed in Table 3.5-21.
| |
| 3.5.4 Solid Radwaste S stem 3.5.4.1 General The solid radwaste system collects, monitors, processes, packages and provides temporary storage facilities for radioactive solid wastes for off-site shipment and perma-nent disposal. The following describes the design basis for the solid radwaste system.
| |
| a ~ The solid radwaste system is designed such that the solid radwaste collected and prepared for off-site shipment does not result in radiation exposure in excess of the limits set in 10CFR20.
| |
| : b. The solid radwaste system is designed to package radioactive solid wastes for off-site shipment and burial in accordance with aoplicable requla-tions including 49CFR170-178.
| |
| c ~ The solid radwaste system is designed to prevent the release of significant quantities of radio-active materials to the environs so as to restrict the overall exposure to the public within the limits of 10CFR50, Appendix I.
| |
| : d. Shielded casks are provided as necessary which conform to applicable federal regulations.
| |
| : 3. 5-26
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The solid waste processing system processes both wet and dry solid wastes.'et solid wastes include backwash sludge and spent resins from the reactor water cleanup system, the condensate filter demineralizer system, the fuel pool filter demineralizers, the floor drain filter, the waste collector filter, the floor drain demineralizer, the waste deminerali-zer, the decontamination solution concentrator and the distil-late polishing demineralizer. Dry solids wastes include rags, paper, small equipment parts, solid laboratory wastes, etc.
| |
| The processing of these wastes is discussed in Subsections 3.5.4.4 and 3.5.4.5.
| |
| The input of the various radioactive solid waste inputs are shown on the radwaste process diagram, Figure 3.5-1.
| |
| The expected frequency of solid waste input, the quantities of solids generated and the radioactivity level in the solids after accumulation are listed on Table 3.5-22. Figure 3.5-12 shows the waste packaging portion of the solid radwaste system.
| |
| The radionuclide inventory in the streams that serve as input into the radwaste is listed in Table 3.5-23.
| |
| 3.5.4.2 Radwaste Dis osal S stem Descri tions 3.5.4.2.1 Radwaste Dis osal S stem for Reactor Water Cleanu Slud e The purpose of the radwaste system for cleanup sludge is to process the highly radioactive backwash waste which is dis-charged from the reactor water cleanup system.
| |
| The .reactor water cleanup system includes two filter-demin-eralizer units, each of which are precoated with powdered ion exchange resin (powdex), which is retained on a permanent stainless steel septum. These filter demineralizer units remove, by filtration and ion exchange, the suspended and dissolved solids from the recirculating primary reactor coolant. These solids consist of radioactive and stable elements. Upon exhaustion of either its filtration or ion exchange capability, the cleanup filter demineralizer is taken out of service. Then it is backwashed and precoated.
| |
| The backwash waste discharged from a cleanup demineralizer consists of a slurry which has a suspended solids content of about 0.5% by weight. This slurry is accumulated in one of the two cleanup phase separators.
| |
| Each backwash batch received by the working phase separator is allowed to settle and the resulting decantate is pumped to to the waste collector tank. The bottoms, or sludge, is 3.5-27
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER stored in the phase separator, and when sufficient sludge has accumulated, the working phase separator is isolated for a period of one to two months to permit additional time for radionuclide decay. At the end of this decay period, water is added to the sludge until about 5% solids content by weight is reached and fuges for dewatering. See it is then pumped to the centri-Subsection 3.5.4.4 for a descrip-tion of the centrifuges.
| |
| 3.5.4.2.2 Radwaste Dis osal S stem for Condensate Demineralizer Slud e The purpose of this system is to process the radioactive backwash waste which is discharged from the condensate filter demineralizer system.
| |
| The condensate filter demineralizer system consists of six filter demineralizer units which are precoated with powdered ion exchange resin (powdex). Five of these are in continuous operation and one is in a standby mode. These filter demin-eralizer units remove, by filtration and ion exchange, the suspended and dissolved solids from the reactor steam condensate. These solids consist primarily of corrosion products and trace radionuclides. Upon exhaustion of either its filter or ion exchange capability, the exhausted demin-eralizer is taken out of service and is backwashed and pre-coated.
| |
| The backwash waste discharged from a condensate demineralizer consists of a slurry which has a suspended solids content of aoubt 0.5% by weight. This discharge is collected in the condensate backwash receiving tank. After collection, the waste is transferred- by pumping to one of the two condensate phase separators for processing.
| |
| Operation of the condensate phase separators is similar to that for the cleanup phase separat'ors (See Subsection 3.5.4.2.l). Backwash sludge is received by the phase separators at a suspended sludge concentration of 0.5% by weight. The slurry is retained to allow setting and is then decanted to the waste collector. The sludge fraction is routed to the centrifuges for dewatering and solid waste packaging.
| |
| 3.5-28
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 3.5.4.2.3 Radwaste Dis osal S stem for Fuel Pool, Floor Drain and Waste Co'llector Filter 'Slu e The purpose of this system is to collect backwash sludge wastes from the floor drain filter, waste collector filter and fuel pool filter demineralizers. These wastes, which have a solids content of about 0.5% by weight, are drained by gravity to the waste sludge phase separator. The waste sludge phase separator decants the wastes to a solids content, of 5% by weight. The resulting decantate is pumped to the floor drain collector tank.
| |
| When a predetermined quantity of waste sludge has been accumulated, water is added to it until a solids content of 5% by weight is reached. Then the sludge is pumped to the centrifuges for dewatering.
| |
| 3.5.4.2.4 Radwaste Dis osal S stem for S ent Resin The purpose of this system is to collect spent resin from the floor drain, waste collector and distillate polishing demineralizers. These wastes are hydropneumatically trans-ferred to the spent resin tank. The spent resin tank is designed to accept one batch of resins from any of the aforementioned demineralizers plus resin transfer water plus free board. Each batch of the spent resin is trans-ferred, in slurry, to the centrifuges for dewatering.
| |
| 3.5.4.3 Radwaste Dis osal S stem for Concentrated Solutions The purpose of this system is to process wastes from the decontamination solution concentrators which are discharged to the concentrator waste tanks. These wastes consist of radioactive chemical wastes, detergent wastes and excess inventory floor drain 'wastes whose chemical content is too high to permit economical purification by ion exchange.
| |
| These wastes are concentrated in the decontamination solution concentrator.
| |
| The waste solution from the decontamination solution concen-trator is blown down with steam to one of two decontamination solution concentrated waste tanks. Fach concentrated waste tank is sized to handle half of a batch of concentrated waste solution from each concentrator.
| |
| Prom the concentrated waste tank, the concentrated solution is pumped to the decontamination solution concentrator waste measuring tank. From here, the solution is fed into the solids waste processing system for solidification and dis-posal. Note that these wastes are not pumped to the centri-fuges prior to disposal.
| |
| 3, 5-29
| |
| | |
| %%P-2 ER
| |
| : 3. 5. 4. 4 Radwaste Solids Handlinq S stem The purpose of this system is to process the waste sludge slurries from the cleanup phase separators, the condensate phase separators, the waste sludge phase separators, the spent resin tank and the concentrated solutions from the decontamination solution concentrator waste measuring tank.
| |
| The system dewaters the bulk volume of the solid water slurries and prepares the dewatered concentrated waste for off-site shipment in disposable containers. The system also reclaims the water from the wet solid wastes for reuse within the plant. Concentrator waste solutions can be solidified in disposable containers for off-site shipment.
| |
| In addition, the system has the capability for solidifying all dewatered solid wastes in disposable containers com-patible for off-site shipment.
| |
| Two processing trains are provided for processing the solid waste slurries. Each processing train consists of a centri-fuge, hopper, controls and piping to dewater and concentrate the solid waste slurries. In addition, one processing train contains equipment for solidifying the dewatered solid wastes.
| |
| This equipment consists of a waste processing pump, static mixer and associated polymer storage tanks, polymer day tank, catalyst tanks and pumps to deliver predetermined amounts of polymer and catalyst for solidification.
| |
| Sludge and resin wastes are pumped from the cleanup phase separators, the condensate phase separators, the waste sludge phase separator or the, spent resin tank and are reduced in volume by dewatering in either one of the two centrifuges.
| |
| Water effluent from the centrifuges is transferred to the waste sludge phase s'eparator tank for decanting, reprocessing and reuse in the station. The dewatered solid wastes are discharged from the centrifuges by gravity into their re-spective hoppers, which are used for filling 50 cubic foot containers for disposal.
| |
| If solidification is required, the solidification processing train is used and the hopper is filled to a predetermined level with dewatered solids from the centrifuge. The. re-quired amount, of water is then added to each hopper.
| |
| An empty disposable container is placed on the transfer dolly and the transfer dolly and container are then moved to the filling station underneath the hopper. The hopper discharge valve is opened, which permits the flow of wastes to the waste processing pump. A set of hopper augers forces the wastes into the, discharge bin and a conveyor transports the 3.5-30
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER waste to the throat of the pump. The speed of the waste processing pump, polymer processing pump and. the amount of catalyst are set to achieve the proper ratio of solids, polymer and catalyst required for proper solidification of the mixture. The processing pumps are started and pump the mixture through the static mixer where the solids, catalyst and polymers are well mixed. Then, the mixture is dis-charged into a disposable container from the static mixer.
| |
| An identical process to the above is used to solidify de-contamination solution concentrator wastes. The concentrator waste measuring tank discharges directly to the waste proces-sing pump. The speed of the waste processing pump, polymer processing pump and catalyst processing pump are set to achieve the proper ratio of concentrate, polymer and catalyst required for solidification of the mixture. The processing pumps are started and pump the mixture into the static mixer where mixing occurs; then the mixture is discharged into a disposable container.
| |
| Dewatered solid wastes are packaged in 50 cu. ft. disposable containers that meet the requirements established in 49CFR170-178. The containers are brought into the processing area and loaded on the dolly and the dolly is moved to the filling station where dewatered waste is added. The quantity of wastes packaged in the container is measured by a level indicator.
| |
| The filled container is moved to the container capping sta-tion where it is remotely capped by the operator. After capping, the container is moved to the smear and washdown station and decontaminated prior to being sent to the storage area station.
| |
| The storage area is capable of storing up to seventy-two 50 cubic foot containers. High radioactivity containers can be stored for periods of up to, and in excess of, six months to allow for additional decay prior to shipment.
| |
| 3.5.4.5 Miscellaneous Solid Waste S stem Dry waste consists of air filter media, miscellaneous paper, rags, etc. from contaminated areas. It also consists of contaminated clothing, tools and equipment parts which cannot be effectively decontaminated, and solid laboratory wastes.
| |
| The radioactivity level of much of the waste is low enough to permit direct handling by personnel. These wastes are collected in containers located in appropriate zones around the plant as dictated by the volumes of wastes generated 3.5-31 ~
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER during operation and maintenance. The filled containers are sealed and moved to a controlled access area for temporary storage. Compressible wastes are compacted into 55-gallon steel drums in a hydraulic press-baling machine to reduce their volume.
| |
| The compressed solid wastes are stored temporarily near the truck loading area in the radwaste building. Non-compressible solid wastes are packaged manually in similar 55-gallon steel drums. Because of its low radioactivity level, this waste can be stored until enough is accumulated to permit eco-nomical transportation to an off-site burial ground for final disposal.
| |
| 3.5.5 Process and Effluent Monitorin The locations and elevations of all radioactive release points are shown in Figure 3.1-6.
| |
| Table 3.5-24 lists all radioactive effluent monitoring and control points. Indicated are those monitors that auto-matically terminate effluent discharges upon alarm or those monitors, upon alarm, which automatically actuate standby or alternative treatment systems or which automatically divert streams to holdup tanks.
| |
| 3.5-32
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-1 NOBLE GAS CONCENTRATION IN THE REACTOR STEAM NUMERICAL VALUES CONCENTRATIONS IN PRINCIPAL FLUID
| |
| ~(LICi/ )
| |
| ISOTOPE REACTOR STEAM Kr 83 m 1. 1 E-3 Kr 85 m 1.9 E-3 Kr 85 6.0 E-6 Kr 87 6.6 E-3 Kr 88 6.6 E-3 Kr 89 4.1 E-2 Kr 90 9.0 E-2 Kr 91 1.1 E-1 Kr 92 1.1 E-1 Kr 93 2.9 E-2 Kr 94 7.2 E-3 Kr 95 6.6 E-4 Kr 97 4.4 E-6 Xe 131 m 4.7 E-6 Xe 133 m 9.0 E-5 Xe 133 2. 6 E-3 Xe 135 m 8.4 E-4 Xe 135 7.2 E-3 Xe 137 4.7 E-2 Xe 138 2.8 E-2 Xe 139 9.0 E-2 Xe 140 9.6 E-2 Xe 141 7. 8 E-2 Xe 142 2.3 E-2 Xe 143 3.8 E-3 Xe 144 1.8 E-4 (a) The reactor steam concentration is specified at the nozzle where reactor water leaves the reactor vessel; similarly, the reactor steam concentration is specified at time 0.
| |
| These values are ANSI N237 Table V values multiplied by
| |
| : 0. 6 to convert from the 100,000 pCi/sec 30 minute mixture design basis case to the 60,000 pCi/sec normal operating basis suggested by ANSI N237 and subsequently by NRC Regulatory Guide 1.70.27 references.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3. 5-2 AVERAGE NOBLE GAS RELEASE RATES FROM FUEL LEAKAGE RATE LEAKAGE RATE ATt=0 AT t = 30m ISOTOPE HALF-LIFE (p Ci/s) (pCi/s)
| |
| Kr 83 m 1.86 h 2.0 E3 1.7 E3 Kr 85 m 4.4 h 3.4 E3 3.1 E3 Kr 85 10.74 y 1.1 El 1.1 El Kr 87 76. m 1.2 E4 9.1 E3 Kr 88 2.79 h 1.2 E4 1.1 E4 Kr 89 3.18 m 7.4 E4 7.4 El Kr 90 32.3 s 1.6 E5 Kr 91 8.6 s 2.0 E5 Kr 92 1.84 s 2.0 E5 Kr 93 1.29 s 5.2 E5 Kr 94 1.0 s 1.3 E4 Kr 95 0.5 s 1.2 E3 Kr 97 1. s 7.9 EO Xe 131 m 11.96 d 8.5 EO 8.4 EO Xe 133 m 2.26 d 1.6 E2 1.6 E2 Xe 133 5.27 d 4.7 E3 4.7 E3 Xe 135 m 15.7 m 1.5 E3 4.0 E2 Xe 135 9.16 h 1.3 E4 1.3 E4 Xe 137 3.82 m 8.5 E4 3.4 E2 Xe 138 14.2 m 5.0 E4 1.2 E4 Xe 139 4.0 s 1.6 E5 Xe 140 13.6 s 1.7 E5 Xe 141 1.72 s 1.4 E5 Xe 142 1.22 s 4.1 E4 Xe 143 .96 s 6.8 E3 Xe 144 9. s 3.2 E2 TOTALS 1.4 E6 5.6 E4 (a) NRC Draf t Reg. Guide (Ref . 2)
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-3 CONCENTRATIONS OF HALOGENS IN REACTOR COOLANT AT REACTOR VESSEL EXIT NOZZLES (pCi/ m)
| |
| ISOTOPE REACTOR WATER REACTOR STEAM Br 83 3 E-3 6 E-5 Br 84 5 E-3 1 E-4 Br 85 3 E-3 6 E-5 I 131 5 E-3 1 E-4 I 132 3 E-2 6 E-4 I 133 2 E-2 4 E-4 I 134 7 E-2 1 E-4 I 135 2 E-2 4 E-4 (a) Values from ANSI N237 Table 5
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-4 CONCENTRATIONS OF FISSION PRODUCTS IN REACTOR COOLANT AT REACTOR VESSEL EXIT NOZZLES (pCi/ )
| |
| ISOTOPE REACTOR WATER REACTOR STEAM Rb 89 5 E-3 E-6 Sr 89 1 E-4 E-7 Sr 90 6 E-6 E-9 Sr 91 4 E-3 E-6 Sr 92 1 E-2 E-5 91 4 E-5 E-8 Y 92 6 E-3 E-6 Y 93 7 E-6 E-9 Zr 95 7 E-6 E-9 Zr 97 5 E-6 E-9 Nb 95 7 E-6 E-9 Nb 98 4 E-3 E-6 Mo 99 2 E-3 E-6 Tc 99 m 2 E-2 2 E-5 Tc 101 9 E-2 E-5 Tc 104 8 E-2 E-5 RQ 103 2 E-5 E-8 Ru 105 2 E-3 E-6 RG 106 3 E-6 E-9 Ag 110 m 1 E-6 E-9 Te 129 m 4 E-5 E-8 Te 131 m 1 E-4 E-7 Te 132 1 E-5 E-8 Cs 134 3 E-5 E-8 Cs 136 2 E-5 E-8 Cs 137 7 E-5 E-8 Cs 138 1 E-2 E-5 Ba 139 1 E-2 E-5 Ba 140 4 E-4 E-7 Ba 141 1 E-2 E-5 Ba 142 6 E-3 E-6 La 142 5 E-3 E-6 CB 141 3 E-5 E-8 Ce 143 3 E-5 E-8 Ce 144 3 E-6 E-9 Pr 143 4 E-5 E-8 Nd 147 3 E-6 E-9 W 187 3 E-4 E-7 Np 239 7 E-3 E-6 (a) Values from ANSI N237 Table
| |
| | |
| ÃNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-5 CONCENTRATIONS OF CORROSION PRODUCTS IN REACTOR COOLANT AT REACTOR VESSEL EXIT NOZZLES (pCi/ )
| |
| ISOTOPE REACTOR WATER' REACTOR STEAM Na 24 E-3 9 E-6 P 32 2 E-4 2 E-7 Cr 51 5 E-3 5 E-6 Mn 54 6 E-5 6 E-8 Mn 56 5 E-2 5 F-5 Fe 55 1 E-3 1 E-6 Fe 59 3 E-5 3.E-8 Co 58 2 E-4 2 E-7 Co 60 4 E-4 4 E-7 Ni 63 1 E-6 1 E-9 Ni 65 3 E-4 3 E-7 CQ 64 3 E-2 3 E-5 Zn 65 2 F,-4 2 E-7 Zn 69 m 2 E-3 2 E-6 (a) Values from ANSI N237 Table 5
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-6 CONCENTRATIONS OF 'WATER ACTIVATION PRODUCTS IN REACTOR COOLANT AT REACTOR VESSEL EXIT NOZZLES (IICi/cd)
| |
| ISOTOPE REACTOR WATER REACTOR STEAM N 13 5 E-2 7 E-3 N 16 6 E-1 5 E-1 N 17 9 E-3 2 E-2 0 19 7 E-l 2 E-1 F 18 4 E-3 4 E-3 (a) Values from ANSI N237 Table 5'
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-7 RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN FUEL POOL RADIONUCLIDE RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATION p Ci/mL I 131 <lx 10 H 3 8.8 x 10 Mn 54 6 x 10 Co 58 1.8 x 10 Co 60 7.4 x 10 Sr 89 2.0 x 10 Sr 90 1.8 x 10 Cs 134 3.1 x 10 Cs 137 7.6 x 10 Ba 140 1.5 x 10 (a) Radiological Surveillance Studies at a Boiling Water Nuclear Power Reactor, BRH/DER 70-1, February 1971.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER'ABLE 3.5-8 ESTIMATED RELEASES FROM DRYWELL AND REACTOR BUILDING VENTILATION SYSTEMS REACTOR BUILDING CONTAINMENT BUILDING Ci/ r Ci/ r Kr 85 m 3 Kr 87 Kr 88 Xe 133 66 Xe 135 m 46 46 Xe 135 34 34 Xe 138 70 70 I 131 0. 17 1..7 x 10 I 133 0. 68 6.8 x. 10 Cr 51 3 x 10 3 x 10 Mn 54 3 x 10 3 x 10 4x10
| |
| '0 Fe 59 4 x Co 58- 6x10 6 x 10 Co 60 lx10 '1 x 10 Zn 65 2x10 2 x 10 Sr 89 9 x 10 9 x 10 Sr 90 5x10 5 x 10 Zr 95 4 x 10' 4 x 10 '0 Sb 124 x 10 2 x Cs 134 4 x 10 4 x 10 Cs 136 3 x 10 3 x 10 Cs 137 5xl0 10 Ba 140 4 x 10 4 x 10 Ce 141 lx10 1 x 10 (a) Based on NRC GALE Code (Ref . 2)
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE '3.5-9 ESTIMATED RELEASES FROM TURBINE BUILDING VENTILATION C~i/ r Kr 85 m 68 Kr 87 190 Kr 88 230 Xe 133 280 Xe 135 m 650 Xe 135 630 Xe 138 1400 I 131 0.19 I 133 0.76 Cr 51 1.3 x 10 Mn 54 6x10 Fe 59 Sx10 Co 58 6 x 10 Co 60 2 x 10 Zn 65 2 x 10 Sr 89 6 x 10 Sr 90 2 x 10 Zr 95 ~
| |
| 1 x 10 Sb 124 3x 10 Cs 134 3 x 10 Cs 136 5x10 Cs 137 6 x 10 Ba 140 1.1 x 10 Ce 141 6 x 10 (a) Based on NRC GALE Code (Ref. 2)
| |
| | |
| WNP-,2 ER TABLE 3.5-10 ESTIMATED RELEASES FROM RADWASTE BUILDING
| |
| ~Ci/ r Ze 133 10 Xe 135 45 I 131 5.0 x 10 I 133 1.8 x 10 Cr 51 9.0 x 10 '0 Mn 54 4.5 x Fe -59 1.5 x 10 Co 58 4.5 x 10 Co 60 9.0 x 10 Zn 65 1.5 x 10
| |
| . Sr 89 4.5 x 10 Sr, 90 3.0 x 10 '0 Zr .95 5.0 x Sb 124 5.0 x 10 Cs 134 4.5 x 10 Cs 136 4.5 x 10 Cs 137 9.0 x 10 '0 Ba 140 1.0 x Ce 1.41 6.0 x 10 (a) Based on NRC GALE Code (Ref . 2)
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-11 ESTIMATED RELEASES FROM MECHANICAL VACUUM PUMP
| |
| ~Ci/ r Xe 133 2300 Xe 135 350 I 131 3 x 10 Cs 134 3 x 10
| |
| '0 Cs 136 2 x Cs 137 1 x 10 Ba 140 1.1 x 10 (a) Based on NRC GALE Code (Ref. 2)
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-12 ANNUAL RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL AS LIQUID CONCENTRATION IN PRIMARY ADJUSTED HALF-LIFE COOLANT HIGH PURITY LOW PURITY TOTAL LWS TOTAL TOTAL NUCLIDE (DAYS) (MICRO CI/ML) (CURIES) (CURIES) (CURIES) (CI/YR)* (CI/YR)
| |
| CORROSION AND ACTIVATION PRODUCTS NA 24 6. 25E-01 8. 38E-03 0. 00034 0.00041 0.00075 0.00656 0.00660 P 32 1.43E 01 1.96E-04 0.00001 0.00002 0.00003 0.00026 0.00026 CR 51 2.78E 01 4.90E-03 0.00026 0.00050 0.00077 0.00671 0.00670 MN 54 3.03E 02 5 '89E-05 0.00000 0.00001 0.00001 0.00008 0.00008 MN 56 1.07E-01 4.08E-02 0.00050 0.00032 0.00081 '.00712 0.00710 FE 55 9.50E 02 9.82E-04 0.00005 0.00010 0.00016 0.00136 0.00140 FE 59 4.50E 01 2.94E-05 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00004 0.00004 CO 58 7.13E 01 1.96E-04 0.00001 0.00002 0.00003 0.00027 0.00027 CO 60 1.92E 03 3.93E-04 0.00002 0.00004 0.00006 0.00055 0.00055 NI 65 1.07E-01 2.45E-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00004 0.00004 CU 64 5.33E-01 2.77E-02 0.00106 0.00122 0.00228 0.02000 0.02000 ZN 65 2.45E 02 1.96E-04 0.00001 0.00002 0;00003 0.00027 0.00027 ZN 69M 5.75E-01 1.85E-03 0.00007 0.00009 0.00016 0.00139 0.00140 ZN 69 3.96E-02 0.0 0.00008 0.00009 0.00017 0.00146 0 '0150 W 187 9.96E-01 2. 84E-04 0.00001 0.00002 0.00003 0.00027 0.00027'.00792 NP 239 2.35E-OO 6. 77E-03 0.00034 0.00057 0.00090 0.00790 FISSION PRODUCTS p)
| |
| BR 83 1.00E-01 2.31E-03 0.00003 0.00002 0.00004 0.00037 0.00037 I 0 BR 84 2.21E-02 3.50E-03 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00003 0.00003
| |
| ~ g RB 89 1.07E-02 3.43E-03 0.00001 0.00002 0.00002 0.00021 0.00021
| |
| ~e) ( SR 89 5.20E 01 9.81E-05 0.00001 0.00001 0.00002 0.00014 0.00014 SR 91 4.03E-01 3.64E-03 0.00012 0.00013 0.00025 0.00222 0.00220 Y 91M 3 '7E-02 0.0 0.00008 0.00008 0.00016 0.00139 0.00140 Y 91 5.88E 01 3.93E-05 0.00000 0.00001 0.00001 0.00007 0.00007 SR 92 1.13E-01 8.20E-03 0.00011 0.00007 0.00017 0.00152 0.00150
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3. 5-12 (Cont'd)
| |
| CONCENTRATION IN PRIMARY ADJUSTED HALF-LIFE COOLANT HIGH PURITY LOW PURITY TOTAL LWS TOTAL TOTAL NUCLIDE (DAYS) (HICRO CI/HL) (CURIES) (CURIES) (CURIES) (CI/YR) * (CI/YR)
| |
| Y 92 1.47E-01 5.04E-03 0.00020 0. 00015 0.00036 0.00313 0.00310 Y 93 4.25E-ol 3.65E-03 0.00013 0.00013 0.00026 0.00230 0.00230 NB 98 3.54E-02 2.96E-03 0.00001 0.00000 0.00001 0.00008 0.00008 HO 99 2.79E-OO 1.94E-03 0.00010 0.00017 0.00027 0.00233 0.00230 TC 99M 2.50E-ol 1.76E-02 0.00051 0.00051 0.00102 0.00893 0 '0890 TC101 9.72E-03 6.25E-02 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00002 0.00002 RU103 3.96E>01 1.96E-05 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00003 0';00003 2 I RH103H 3.96E 02 0.0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00003 0.00003 TC104 1.25E-02 5. 60E-02 0.00000 0.00000 0.00001 0.00006 0.00006 RU105 1.85E-01 1.72E-03 0.00004 0.00003 0.00006 0.00055 0.00055 RU105H 5.21E-04 0.0 0.00004 0.00003 0.00006 n.ooo56 0~ 00056 RH105 1.50E 00 0.0 0.00001 0~ 00001 0.00002 0.00018 0.00018 TE129H 3.40E 01 3.92E-05 0.00000 0.00000 0.00001 0.00005 0.00005 TE129 4.79E-02 0.0 0. 00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00003 0.00003 TE131H 1.25E 00 9.54E-05 0.00000 0.00001 0.00001 0.00010 0.00010 TE131 1.74E-02 0.0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00002 0 '0002 I131 8.05E 00 4.87E-03 0.00026 0.00047 0.00073 0.00643 0.00640 TE132 3.25E 00 9.71E-06 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00001 0.00001 I132 9.58E-02 2.30E-02 0.00024 0.00015 0.00039 0.00345 0.00350 I133 8.75E-Ol 1.84E-02 0.00080 0.00110 0.00190 0.01667 0.01700 I134 3.67E-02 5.01F.-02 0~ 00010 0.00006 0.00016 0.00144 0.00140 CS134 7.49E 02 2.95E-05 0.00008 0.00077 0.00085 0.00741 0.00740 I135 2.79E>>01 1.69E-02 0.00048 0.00042 0.00090 0.00788 0.00790 CS136 1.30E 01 1.95E-05 0.00005 0.00049 0.00054 0.00473 0.00470 CS137 1.10E 04 6.87E-05 0.00019 0.00179 0.00197 0.01730 0.01700 BA137H 1.77E-03 0.0 0.00017 0.00167 0.00184 0.01618 0.01600 CS138 2.24E-02 7.00E-03 0.00021 0.00062 0.00083 0.00724 0.00720 BA139 5.76E-02 7. 71E-03 0 ~ 00004 0.00002 0.00006 0.00053 0.00053
| |
| ~el g
| |
| I BA140 LA140 1.28E ol 1.67E-OO 3.92E-04 0.0 0.00002 0.00000 0.00004 0.00001 0.00006 0.00001 0.00053 0.00011 0.00053 0.00011 LA141 1.62E-ol 0.0 0.00001 0.00001 0.00002 0~ 00017 0.00017 CE141 3 '4E 01 2.94E-03 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00004 0~ 00004
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-12 (Cont'd)
| |
| CONCENTRATION IN PRIMARY ADJUSTED HALF-LIFE COOLANT HIGH PURITY LOW PURITY TOTAL LWS TOTAL TOTAL NUCLIDE (DAYS) ,(MICRO CI/ML) (CURIES) (CURIES) (CURIES) (CI/YR) * (CI/YR)
| |
| LA142 6.39E-02 3.89E-03 0.00003 0. 00002 0. 00004 0.00036 0.00036 CE143 1.38E 00 2.87E-05 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00003 0.00003 PR143 1.37E 01 3.92E-05 0.00000 0.00000 0.00001 0.00005 0.00005 ALL OTHERS 1.32E-02 0~ 00000 0.00000 0.00001 0.00007 0.00007 TOTAL (EXCEPT TRITIUM) 4.11E-01 0. 00685 0.01246 0.01931 0.16931 0.17000 TRITIUM RELEASE 12 Curies per year
| |
| *Adjusted total includes an additional 0.15 ci/yr with the same isotopic distribution as the calculated source term to account for anticipated occurrences such as operator errors resulting in unplanned releases.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-13 RADWASTE OPERATING EQUIPMENT DESIGN BASIS DESIGN BASIS EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION FACTOR Deep Bed Demineralizers Conductivity ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ o o ~ ~ o 20 Radioactivity Soluble 100 Insoluble 50 Precoat Filters Suspended Solids Equipment Drains 20 Floor Drains 100 Radxoactxvxty Soluble 1 Insoluble 2 Evaporators Concentration 2/25 (Input/Bottom)
| |
| Radioactivity 1000
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3. 5-14 RADWASTE SYSTEM PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM DATA (sheet 1 of ll)
| |
| EQUIPMENT DRAIN SUBSYSTEM Flow Path Batches/Day (Normal) 8.5 4.1 6.3 1.0/3.4 4.0/7.4 Batches/Day (Maximum) 63.4 15.8 6.3 1.0 4.0/2.0 Volume/Batch (gal) 455 909 909 909 2430 13,500 Normal Daily Volume (gal) 3,860 3,755 1,000 5,725 Normal Activity (uCi/cc) 4.92E-2 1.24E-2 6.84E-5 1.82E-5 l. 52E-2 6.84E-6 Max. Daily Volume (gal) 28,800 14,400 1,000 5,725 2,430 27,000 Max. Activity (uCi/cc) 1.72E-O 4.32E-l 2.39E-3 1.26E-2 5.32E-l 3.59E-4 Flow Rate (gal/min) 50 50 50 50 50 450 Daily Activity (uCi/day)
| |
| Normal 7.19E5 1.76E5 2.59E2 3.94E2 Maximum 2.51E7 6.14E6 9.05E3 2.73E5 4.89E6 3.67E4 See page 9 of Table for notes, definitions and explanation of entries.
| |
| | |
| 'WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-14 EQUIPMENT DRAIN SUBSYSTEM (Cont.)
| |
| (sheet 2 of ll)
| |
| Flow Path 33 12 14 Batches/Day (Normal) 1.0/30.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Batches/Day (Maximum) 1.0/30.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Volume/Batch (gal) 11,250 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Normal Daily Volume (gal) 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Normal Activity (uCi/cc) 8.79E-7 1.11E-2 5.54E-3 1.11E-4 1.11E-4 Max. Daily Volume (gal) 11,250 .104,825 104,825 104,825 104,825 Max. Activity (uCi/cc) 3.08E-5 3.59E-l 3.53E-l 3.53E-3 3.53E-3 Flow Rate (gal/min) Batch 190 190 190 190 Daily Activity (uCi/day)
| |
| Normal 6.28E5 3.12E5 6.28E3 6.28E3 Maximum l. 31E3 4.9E7
| |
| ,
| |
| 4.82E7 4.82E5 4.82E5
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3. 5-14 (sheet 3 of ll)
| |
| FLOOR DRAIN SUBSYSTEM Flow Path 17 18 19 20 21 Batches/Day (Normal) 1.5 2.2 1.1 2.2 .3 Batches/Day (Maximum) 63.4 16.5 1.1 2.2 1.3 Volume/Batch (gal) 455 909 909 909 19,305 Normal Daily Volume (gal) 700 2,000 1, 000 2, 000 6,615 Normal- Activity (uCi/cc) 6.84E-6 1.00E-6 1.37E-5 6.84E-7 9.53E-5 Maximum Daily Volume (gal) 28,800 12,000 1,000 2,000 52,062 Maximum Activity (uCi/cc) 6.84E-2 1.00E-3 4.78E-4 2.39E-5 1.08E-2 Flow Rate (gal/min) 50 100 50 50 190 Daily Activity (uCi/Day)
| |
| Normal 1. 81E1 7. 57EO 5. 18E1 5.18EO 2. 39E3 Maximum 1.81E5 7.57E3 1.61E3 1.81E3 5.40E5
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-14 (sheet 4 of ll)
| |
| FLOOR DRAIN SUBSYSTEM (Cont.)
| |
| Flow Path 23 107 108 Batches/Day (Normal) .3 .3 .3 Batches/Day (Maximum) 1.3 1.3 1.3 Volume/Batch (gal) 19,305 19, 305 19,305 Normal Daily Volume (gal) 6,615 -6, 615 6,615 Normal Activity (uCi/cc) 4.76E-5 9.53E-7 9.53E-7 Maximum Daily Volume (gal) 52,062 52,062 52,062 Maximum Activity (uCi/cc) 1.08E-2 1.08E-4 1.08E-4 Flow Rate (gal/min) 190 190 190 Daily Activity (uCi/Day)
| |
| Normal 1.19E3 2.39El 2.34El Maximum 5.40E5 5.40E3 5.40E3
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-14 (sheet 5 of ll)
| |
| WASTE SURGE SUBSYSTEM Flow Path 104 37 Batches/Day (Normal) 1.0/yr l. 0/yr Batches/Day (Maximum) 1.0 1.0 Volume/Batch .(gal) 56,720 56,720 Normal Daily Volume (gal)
| |
| Normal Activity (uCi/cc)- 6.84E-6 6.84E-6 Maximum Daily Volume (gal) 56,720 56,720 Maximum Activity (uCi/cc) 3,59E-4 3.59E-4 Flow Rate (gal/min) Batch 190
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-14 (sheet 6 of ll)
| |
| CHEMICAL WASTE SUBSYSTEM Flow Path 27 109 120 121 122 Batches/Day.(Normal) 1.0 Batches/Day (Maximum) 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 Volume/Batch (gal) 1,000 24,305 24,305 760 230 Normal Daily Volume (gal) 1,000 Normal Activity (uCi/cc) 1.0E-5 2.63E-3 2.58E-3 1.45E-2 1.45E-2 Maximum Daily Volume (gal) 2,000 24,305 24,305 760 760 Maximum Activity (uCi/cc) 1.0E-5 2.67E-3 1.50E-2 1.50E-2 Flow Rate (gal/min) 25 190 10 Batch 30
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3. 5-15 (sheet 7 of 11)
| |
| WASTE SLUDGE SUBSYSTEM (Condensate Backwash)
| |
| Flow Path 56 58 60 Batches/Day (Normal) 4.0/7.4 4.0/7.4 1/18.5 4/7.4 Batches/Day (Maximum) 4.0 4 0 4.0 Volume/Batch Solids (lbs). 330 330 3300 Liquids (gal) 13,500 13,500 7527 13,500 Normal Daily Volume (gal) 13,500 13,500 Normal Activity Solids (uCi/Batch) 2.10E6 2.10E6 1. 20E7 Liquids (uCi/cc) 6.84E-6 6.84E-6 6.84E-6 6.84E-6 Maximum Daily Volume (gal) 54,000 54,000 7527 27,000 Maximum Activity Solids (uCi/Batch) 5.26E7 5.26E7 2. 67E7 Liquids (uCi/cc) . 3.59E-4 3.59E-4 3.59E-4 3.59E-4 Flow Rate (gal/min) 2,500 450 20 450
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3. 5-14 (sheet 8 of ll)
| |
| WASTE SLUDGE SUBSYSTEM (Radwaste Filter Backwash)
| |
| Flow Path 61 63 62 65 Batches/Day (Normal) 1.0 1. 0/3. 4 1.0/5.2 1.0/3.4 Batches/Day (Maximum) 2.9 1.0 1.0/5.2 1.0 1.1 Volume/Batch Solids (lbs) 41. 36 41.36 59. 4 219 Liquids (gal) 1692 1692 2430 28,800 527 Normal Daily Volume (gal) 1692 Normal Activity Solids (uCi/Batch) 3.15E4 8.03E1 1.40E4 4.64E4 Liquids (uCi/cc) 6.84E-6 6.84E-6 6.84E-6 varies 6.84E-6 Maximum Daily Volume (gal) 4906 1692 28,800 527 Maximum Activity Solids (uCi/Batch) 3.15E4 8.03E1 1.41E6 7.33E5 Liquids (uCi/cc) 3.59E-4 3.59E-4 3.59E-4 varies 9.88E-4 Flow Rate (gal/min) 376 376 540 20 20
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-14 (sheet 9 of ll)
| |
| WASTE SLUDGE SUBSYSTEM (Cleanup Backwash)
| |
| Flow Path 54 59 Batches/Day (Normal) 2.0/3.4 1.0/60 2.0/3.4 Batches/Day (Maximum) 2.0 1.0/60 2.0 Volume/Batch Solids (lbs) ~ 29.7 1048 Liquids (gal) 1215 2391 Normal Daily Volume (gal) 1215 1215 Solids (uCi/Batch) 2.43E7 2.25E8 Normal Activity 1.52E-2 1.52E-2 1.52E-2 Maximum Daily Volume (gal) 2430 2391 2430 Maximum Activity Solids (uCi/Batch) 7.68E8 3.59E8 Liquids (uCi/gal) 5.33E-1 5.53E-1 5.33E-1 Flow Rate (gal/min) 270 20 53
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-14 (sheet 10 of 11)
| |
| WASTE SLUDGE SUBSYSTEM (Spent Resin)
| |
| Flow Path 64 119 69 71 Batches/Day (Normal) 1.0/66 1.0/67 1.0/25 Batches/Day (Maximum) 1.0/29 1.0/49 1.0/22 Volume/Batch Solids (lbs) 1539 1539 1863 1539 Liquids (gal) 746 746 930 3210 Normal Activity Solids (uCi/Batch) 2.28E6 5. 86E3 1.56E2 Liquids (uCi/gal) 6.84E-6 6.84E-6 6.84E-6 6.84E-6 Maximum Activity Solids (uCi/Batch) 2.74E7 2.34E5 1.72E2 Liquids (uCi/gal) 3.59E-4 3.59E-4 3.59E-4 3.59E-4 Flow Rate (gal/min) 37 37 47 20
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-14 (sheet 11 of ll)
| |
| NOTES a~ The following definitions are used for this data:
| |
| Normal Volume Expected flow during steady state normal operation.
| |
| Maximum Volume Maximum expected flow during unsteady state operation such as startup, shutdown, etc.
| |
| Normal Activity Activity level expected during operation with no fuel leaks and
| |
| | |
| corrosion product reactor water activity concentration of 0.1 uCi/cc.
| |
| Maximum Activity Activity level expected during operation with fuel leak rate equivalent to reactor water activity concentration of 2.3 uCi/cc and total noble gas stock release rate of 100,000 uCi/sec (corrosion and fission products present).
| |
| Maximum volume and maximum activity are not necessarily concurrent.
| |
| -1 1
| |
| : b. For Activity Values: E-l.= number x 10 4,. El = number x 10 4 E-4 = number x 10 ; E4 = number x 10 c ~ Fractional values on tables denote the number of items per occurrence divided by the number of days between each occurrence (i.e., 1/30 batches/day means one batch processed every 30 days).
| |
| : d. Waste system input activities are based on a reactor water-to-steam decontamination factor of 1.0E-3.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3. 5-15 EQUIPMENT DRA'IN SUBSYSTEM SOURCES Startup Regular Irregular Maximum Flows Daily Flows Flows Flows Source (GPD) (GPD) (GPD) (GPD)
| |
| Equipment Drains Drywell 3,800 3, 800 28,800 Reactor Bldg. 3,800 3,800 14,400 Turbine Bldg. 5,700 5,700 5,700 Radwaste Bldg. 1,000 1,000 1,000 Reactor Hydrotest
| |
| & Thermal Expansion Water 56,700 Suppression Pool Drain 11,300 11,300 (4)
| |
| RHR System Flush Water 4,000 (5)
| |
| Condensate Demin.
| |
| Backwash 27,000 13~500 (1) 40JS00 (3)
| |
| Cleanup Demin.
| |
| Backwash 2,400 2,400 (2)
| |
| Water Inleakage to Condenser 14,400 111,700 14,300 104,800 Under normal operating conditions, one condensate filter demineralizer would be precoated every four days.
| |
| : 2. Under normal operating conditions, each cleanup demineralizer would be precoated every 3.4 days.
| |
| : 3. The maximum daily .flow is based on a condenser inleakage of 10 gpm, which corresponds to two condensate demineralizer precoats daily and maximum leak and drain inflows. Higher condenser inleakage rates can be accommodated up to a maximum of 36 gpm. This requires precoating of one condensate de-mineralizer every three hours. This leakage rate would result in overloading the equipment drain subsystem but could be tolerated for short periods of time during location and repair of the leak.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-'l5 (Cont'd)
| |
| Once every thirty days during testing of reactor emergency core coolant systems.
| |
| Occurs every shutdown prior to placing the RHR system in operation for shutdown cooling.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-16
| |
| 'LOOR DRAIN SUBSYSTEM SOURCES Regular Irregular Maximum Daily Flows Flows Daily Flows Source (GPD) (GPD) (GPD)
| |
| Floor Drains Drywell 700 7,200 Reactor Building 2,000 12,000 Radwaste Building 1,000 1,000 Turbine Building 2, 000 2,000 Waste Sludge Phase Separator Decant s,4oo 8,400 5,700 8,400 31,200 (1) Under normal operating conditions, the waste sludge phase separator tank is decanted every 3.4 days.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-17
| |
| 'CHEM'ICAL'ASTE SUBSYSTEM SOURCES Regular Irregular MBximum Daily Flows Flows Daily Flows Source (GPD) (GPD) (GPD)
| |
| Detergent Drains/Shop Decontamination Solutions 1,000 2,000 Laboratory Drains 400 400 Decontamination Drains Reactor Turbine Buildings 1,000 1,000 From Floor Drain or Equipment Drain Subsystem 20,000 20,000 Filter Demineralizer Chemical Cleaning Infrequent 2,000 Solutions 2,000 Battery Room Drains Infrequent 100 100 Chemical System Overflow Infrequent 6 Tank Drains 1,400 25,000
| |
| | |
| wNp-2 ER TABLE 3.5-'18
| |
| 'OFF'-GA'S SYSTEM PROCESS DATA The information contained in this table is proprietary and will be transmitted separately with other PSAR proprietary
| |
| =
| |
| information as Sheet 761E918AD.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-19 RELEASE POINT DATA Height of release oint above rade 230'-8" 65'07'nnual average total .
| |
| air flow from release oint 95,000 82,000 261,000 cfm Annual average heat content flow from release oint 15. 09 x 10 41.46 x 10 13.02 x 10 BTU/Hr Type and size of DUCT 3 LOUVER HOUSES 4 DUCTS release oint 45" x 120" 54" x 96" x 30" 57N x 79
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-20 NOBLE GAS RELEASE RATE INTO ATMOSPHERE FROM OFF-GAS SYSTEM Avg. Release Rate
| |
| ~ISOtO O (Ci/ r)
| |
| Kr 85 m Kr 85 270 Xe 131 m Xe 133 22 Total 299
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-21 ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS FROM BUILDING VENTILATION SYSTEMS, GLAND SEAL AND MECHANICAL VACUUM PUMPS GASEOUS RELEASE RATE (CURIES PER YEAR)
| |
| COOLANT CONC. TURBINE REACTOR RADWASTE GLAND MECH VAC NUCLIDE (MICROCURIES/G) DRYWELL BLDG BLDG BLDG SEAL PUMP Kr 83 m 1.100E-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kr 85 m 1.900E-03 3. OE 00 6. 8E 01 3. OE 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kr 85 6.000E-06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kr 87 6.600E-03 3.0E 00 1.9E 02 3.0E 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kr 88 6.600E-03 3.0E 00 2.3E 02 3.0E 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kr 89 4.100E-02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Xe 131 m
| |
| .
| |
| : 4. 700E-06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Xe 133 m 9.000E-05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Xe 133 2.600E-03 6.6E 01 2.8E 02 6. 6E 01 1.0E 01 0.0 2.3E 03 Xe 135 m 8.400E-04 4.6E 01 6. 5E 02 4. 6E 01 0.0 0.0 0.0 Xe 135 7. 200E-03 3.4E 01 6.3E 02 3. 4E 01 4.5E 01 0.0 3.5E 02 Xe 137 4.700E-02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Xe 138 2.800E-02 7.0E 00 1. 4E 03 7.0E 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Noble Gases I 131 3.449E-03 1.7E-02 1.9E-01 1.7E-01 5.0E-02 0.0 3.0E-02 I 133 1.477E-02 6.8E-02 7.6E-01 6.8E-01 1.8E-01 0.0 0.0 Tritium Gaseous Release 68 Curies/Yr "0.0" Appearing in the table indicates release is less than 1.0 Ci/Yr for noble gas and less than 0.0001 Ci/Yr for Iodine.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3. 5-21 (Con't'd)
| |
| ESTIMATED'NNUAL'VERAGERELEA'SES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS FROM BUILDING VENTILATION SYSTEMS, GLAND SEAL AND MECHANICAL VACUUM PUMPS AIRBORNE PARTICULATE RELEASE RATE (CURIES PER YEAR)
| |
| CONTAINMENT TURBINE REACTOR RADWASTE MECH VAC NUCLIDE BLDG BLDG BLDG BLDG PUMP Cr 51 3.0E-06 1.3E-02 3.0E-04 9. OE-05 0.0 Mn 54 3.0E-05 6.0E-04 3.0E-03 4.5E-04 0.0 Fe 59 4.0E-06 5.0E-04 4.0E-04 1.5E-04 0.0 Co 58 6.0E-06 6.0E-04 6.0E-04 4.5E-05 0.0 Co 60 1.0E-04 2.0E-03 1.0E-02 9.0E-04 0.0 Zn 65 2.0E-05 2. OE-04 2.0E-03 1.5E-05 0.0 Sr 89 9.0E-07 6. OE-03 9.0E-05 4.5E-06 0.0 Sr 90 5.0E-08 2.0E-05 5.0E-06 3.0E-06 0.0 Zr 95 4.0E-06 1.0E-04 4.0E-04 5.0E-07 0.0 Sb 124 2.0E-06 3.0E-04 2.0E-04 5.0E-07 0.0 Cs 134 4.0E-05 3.0E-04 4.0E-03 4.5E-05 3.0E-06 Cs 136 3.0E-06 5.0E-05 3.0E-04 4.5E-06 2.0E-06 Cs 137 5.5E-05 6.0E-04 5.5E-03 9.0E-05 1.0E-05 Ba 140 4.0E-06 1.1E-02 4.0E-04 1.0E-06 1.1E-05 Ce 141 1.0E-06 6.0E-04 1.0E-04 6.0E-05 0.0
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-22 EXPECTED ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF SOLIDS Cleanup Filter Demineralizer Sludge
| |
| '~/ 50 Ft 10 Normal Activity pCi/Container 1.39 x 10 8 Maximum Activity pCi/Container 2.23 x 10 8 Condensate Filter Demineralizer Sludge 100 2.47 x 10 6 5.5 x 10 6 Waste, Floor Drain & Fuel Pool Filter Demineralizer Sludge 36 1.37 X 10 2.16 x 10 6 Distillate Demineralizer Resin 26 .96 x 10 2 1.05 x 10 2 Waste Demineralizer Resin 1.78 x 10 6 2.14 x 10 7 Floor Drain Demineralizer Resin 4.56 x 10 3 1.82 x 10 5 Concentrated Waste Solution 2.05 x 10 2.12 x 10 4
| |
| *50 cubic foot containers
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-23 SIGNIFICANT ISOTOPE ACTIVITY ON WET SOLIDS AFTER PROCESSING Clean Up Waste Distillate Waste Floor Drain Condensate Concentrated Stream ~died e ~dlud e Resin Resin Resin Waste Batch Solid Production 1048 lbs/
| |
| 60 days 219 lbs/
| |
| 3.4 days 1863 lbs/
| |
| 25 days 1539 66 lbs/
| |
| days '7 1539 lbs/
| |
| days 3300 lbs/
| |
| 18.5 days 690 3
| |
| lbs/
| |
| days
| |
| ~Iso to et Ci/50 Cubic Foot Container Mo 99 0.3 5.3 x 10 1. 07 9.1 x 10 1.3 x 10 Sr 89 40 0. 15 1.1 x 10 2.14 1.8 x 10 1.16 1.1 x 10 Sr 90 0. 015 1.1 x 10 0. 21 1.8 x 10 0. 11 .8.5 x 10 Cs 134 6.7 0. 006 5.3 x 10 0. 1'1 9.1 x 10 0.11 6.4 x 10 Cs 137 0. 015 1.1 x 10 0. 21 1.8 x 10 0. 17 8.5 x 10 Ba 140 4.5 0. 35 1.1 x 10 2.14 1.8 x 10 0.66 2.3 x 10 Np 239 5.1 x 10 10.3 8.7 x 20 1.1 x 10 I 131 0. 67 0.76 1.1 x 10 2.14 1.8 x 10 0. 44 2.5 x 10 I 133 0.39 3.2 x 10 0. 64 5.5 x 10 Co 58 116 0.15 1.6 x 10 2.14 1.8 x 10 2.26 1.9 x 10 Co 60 29 0.015 1.6 x 10 0.21 1.8 x 10 0.44 2.1 x 10 Cr 51 4.5 0. 015 1.6 x 10 O.ll 9.1 x 10 0.17 2.1 x 10
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-24
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT MONITORING AND CONTROL POINTS LOCATION OF RELEASE POINT DETECTOR OR ALARM OR SHUTDOWN AS SHOWN ON RELEASE POINT SAMPLE PROBE TYPE OF MONITOR FUNCTION . FIG 3.1-6 REMARKS Reactor Bldg. Probe at Continuous Noble High Radiation Effluent Vent Stack Elev. 650'n Gas Detector Alarm Monitor Stack (Gamma), Iodine and Particulate Sampler Cartridge Probe in Off- Dual Continuous High Radiation Process Gas Line from ~
| |
| Noble Gas Detector Alarm Automatically Monitor Outlet of GM Tubes (Gamma), Isolates Off-Gas D17-5011 Charcoal Ad- Iodine and Partic- from Vent Stack sorbers to ulate Sampler Car-Reactor Bldg. tridge Vent Stack Detector in Continuous GM Tube High Radiation Process Line from (Gamma) Detector Alarm, Automatically Monitor (Condenser) Shuts Down Vacuum RE-21 Mechanical Pumps and Gland Vacuum Pumps Seal Exhauster to Vent Stack Four (4) De- Continuous GM Tube High Radiation HVAC Monitor tectors in (Gamma) Detector Alarm, Automatically D17-N009A, Reactor Bldg. Trips Valves to Isolate B, C, D Ventilation HVAC Exhaust fran Exhaust Plenum Vent Stack, Closes (Discharge to Containment Vent Valves Vent Stack) and Initiates Standby Gas Treatment System
| |
| | |
| HNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-24 (Cont'd)
| |
| '
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT MONITORING AND CONTROL POINTS LOCATION OF RELEASE POINT DETECTOR OR ALARM OR SIIUTDOHN AS SHOIIN ON RELEASE POINT SAMPLE PROBE TYPE OF MONITOR FUNCTION FIG 3.1-6 Turbine Bldg. Probe at Continuous Noble High Radiation 34(55'66'EMARKS Effluent HVAC Exhaust Elev. 551'n Gas Detector Alarm Monitor Duct Bet. (Gamma), Iodine Col. 11 a 12 and Particulate 7'-6" North Sampler Cartridge of Col. K Radwaste Bldg. Probes in Continuous, Noble High Radiation Q C88'(P Effluent (llVAC Exhaust) Bldg. (IIVAC Gas Detector Alarm Monitor, Vent Exhaust) Vent (Gamma), Iodine Probe in Each Fan Discharges and Particulate of the three amp1 e r Ca r t r id g e Fan Set Dis-charges Plant Blow- Detector in Continuous Liquid High Radiation Effluent down Line Blowdown Radiation Detector Alarm Monitor, D17 CBD (l)-l Line 24" In Line, Gamma RE NOOG CBD (1)-1 Scintillation Detector in Continuous Liquid High Radiation Process Line 4" FDR (7) -1 Dis-ti Had ia on Detector Alarm, Automatically in Line Gamma Monitor, Isolates Radwaste D17-RE-N006 charging to Scintillation Discharge Blowdown Line 36" CBD (l)-l
| |
| | |
| I NYDROTEST hloi ES:
| |
| I couotusATL CouoeusAle, I.VALVES,INST RUMENTATIOM, RNR FLUSH WASTE SURGE IIASIt I TANK SAMPIE'ALI I STORAGE STORAGE DRAINS. Veuls.UTILITY uuts.
| |
| P K. P I 'IAHK TAllIC AUXILIARYEQUIPMENT. ETC.
| |
| 70.000 CAL 350 000 GAL 350 000 GAL NOI suowLI To PREYENT cLUTIER 20.000 GAL DRYW'ELL RADWASTE k 2 FIGURES WIIHIH b,letuTIFY FlOW l2 f'R EQUIPMLNT BLDG EQUIP P 3 PAIN.SEE TABLE 3.5.14 I
| |
| DRAIN SUMP DRAIN SUMP CllARACTERISTICS TA 5-I WASTE. lisle sulPLt 4 I
| |
| COLLECTOR TANK TANK.
| |
| 3 PARALLEL COMPOutuTS MwY 20000 GAL 20,000 CAL PROM FLOOR ORANI St OPERATED SEPARATELY, SAMPLE. TANK. OR COMCURENILY.
| |
| TURBINE BLDG EQUIP DRAIN p 4 4.ALLTANKS HAVE RECIRCUlA-SUMPS g) BlOWDOWII Ltuf TION CAPABILITY.
| |
| TAbLE 35 l5 QP PUMP RE AGIO R BLDG SPENT . FILTER QP REACTOR SLOG EQUIPMeuT RESIN GPEIIT RRSN INK 2 DRAIN SUMP TANK 49 EQUIPMENT DRAINS TASLK 3.5.lb QH NEATER CONDENSER Qo - DEMIMERALlztR BLGwDowu LUIR
| |
| ~PRIMARYFlOII PAIN otTERGENI DRAIN TANK p CII t M ICAL CONCENTRATOR COIICEMTRAIeo DISTILLATE
| |
| -- ~ALIERNAle. FLOW Will WASTE TAMK P to WASTE TAIIK TANK.
| |
| I 500 GAL I I4200 GAL I 700 CAL l4 200 CAL I
| |
| I I
| |
| MISC. WASTE REACTOR BLDG I I WASIE MEASURING F p TALIK.
| |
| I I
| |
| I OLIERGENT CHEMICAL I CONCENI CONCENTRA DISTILLATE DRAIN TANK P WASTE TANK ASIE TANK TANK P ZO I I
| |
| I SOD CAL l4.200 CAI. TOO CAL l4.200 GAL I I I
| |
| CONDENSER BACKWASH FROM CLEAN.UP ALTERS I
| |
| I I
| |
| I BACKWASH FROM CONDENSATE FILTERS I
| |
| SNOP DECONTAMLHATIOHSOLUTIOH CHEMICAL ADDITION PUMPS P
| |
| LABORATORY ORAIHS OENSAI I GLEAu.Up CLEAM UP I
| |
| PNASL- PHASE PRAN- PHASE DECO I MIAIIINAIION DRAtus. REACTOR 4 URSPIE BIG I I
| |
| EPARAIOR 400 CA epA RAID 2.
| |
| A RAID gO GA~L tPARATOR 4 OOGAL CENTRIFUGES SOILOS WASTE HANDLING 41 BACKWASH FROM FUEL POOL ALTER SOLIDS WASTL NANOLI L 1 CONDEHSAIE eb 4 BACKWASH RECEIVIMG TANK WASTE SLUDGE l8 200 GAL P PHASE sePARAIO DRYIVELL RADWASIE flOOR DRAIN BLDG FLOOR 000 CAL SUMP N SLHPSI 3I SOLIDS WASTE MAHDUMC A<<t 3.S-IG TABLE 35 IO I
| |
| ~vu'. wL I I
| |
| SLOG FLOOR p I I FLOOR DRAIN DRAIN SUNPSIZ I SAMPLE TAN TO CONDENSATE STORAC4 TANKS I 23 D TABLE 35.IG 20,000 GAL I I
| |
| I SLOWDOWN LINE I I I
| |
| REACTOR FLOOR DRAIN I B(OG FLOOR COLLECTOR p F WASTE DEMINERALIZER spe uI Rtslu REACTOR <<OG DRA:NSUMPSI4> TANK El TAMK IABLE 3.5 IG KOOOO GAL 0 IST I LATE l>IOO CAL SOLIDS WASTE WADDLING DEMINERALIZER WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM FMH DIAGRAM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 Environmental Report PKCESS F03Ã DIAGRAM LI~
| |
| FIG.
| |
| | |
| -
| |
| 3
| |
| | |
| WASTE DIMINIRALIZER.ILOORDRAIN DEMINCRALIZER CROSS 'TIE WASTE wASTE FILTER RESIN ADDITION PRECOAT AID TANK TANK ij TANK CHEMICAL WASTL- TANK Vtllt I ~ VALVES.INSTRUMENTA'TNN, DRAINS, VENTS, UTILITY LINESI AUXILIARY I EITUIRVIENTI ETC NOT SHOWN TO I PREVENT CLUTTER AASTE SLUOOt PHASE SEPARATOR I 2 ~ ALL TANKs HAvc REEIREULATIDN I CAPABILITY.
| |
| feooR DRAISI nLTea Z
| |
| t P JfGGND
| |
| - PUMP
| |
| ~RIMARY FLOW PATH
| |
| --~hL'TERNATE FLOW PATH fLOOR DRAIII FtLTER Z r--
| |
| I I
| |
| I 1
| |
| flOOR DRAIN TANK CROSS TK I I I I I Ntv NT I PNASt SEPARATOR I CONDENSATE I I
| |
| I I
| |
| RADWASTE BLDG EQUIPMENT DRAIN SUMP I I
| |
| I SPENT RESIN I CNSNCAL ADDITION (CAUSTIC) TANK I I,IOO CA I. I I
| |
| cutMICAL ADDITION (ACID) I I
| |
| k I
| |
| CLEANUP PNASe StPAfLAIOR 5 I I CENT RIFUCES tt WASTE IIANPlt (fLOOA DIVIWSAMPLO TANIC\ CAOSS >If I
| |
| I I
| |
| I I
| |
| I I
| |
| TUREO Otu BLOD EOUIPMINT DRAIN SUMP I I
| |
| d I I
| |
| I I
| |
| $I WASTE SNIPLE I
| |
| I WASTE SSNPLt I
| |
| I TANK TANK I I l, I 20,000(idL I 20,000 GAL Ai I I I I I RtAC TOR BLDO EQUIPMENT DRAIN SUMPS '5 I
| |
| / I I I I I gl I I
| |
| I gl I)
| |
| I I
| |
| I I I I I I I WASTE CCLLIClOR N I WASTE SURES I COO<INC TOWER
| |
| 'IANK TANK L CKCWVOOAIN 20,000 CAL P 70,000 CAL P I I I I I I I I I I I
| |
| L I CON OENSAT t STORAf RIVCU SYS'TtM RMR CUISM CL.OOR DRAIN COLLECTOR TANK FQN DIAGRAM WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM RADICCKTIVE WASTE SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 Environmental Report EQUIP~ DRAIN PKCESSING FIG. 3.5-2
| |
| | |
| 0 0 -
| |
| '
| |
| | |
| WSSTS DfM>NCRALMOR FLOOR OFAH OILOMERPLNfk CROSS SIP.
| |
| l I
| |
| VENT I
| |
| I ~TFS-
| |
| : l. VALVES. INSTRVMENTATIONy DRAINS VENTS@
| |
| UTII.ITY LlNEbsANLILIRRY EQVIPMEWT, ETC.
| |
| NOT SHOWN TG PREVENT CLMTTE R SES,II FIL I
| |
| : 2. /LL 'IRNKS lZ~
| |
| HAVE RECIRCULATION CAPABILITY
| |
| ~
| |
| (--
| |
| I Z ~ I I
| |
| WASTE FILTER AID ANK O PRIMARY FLOW PATH I
| |
| T g ~ALTERNATE FLOW PATH 3 L I O WASTE PRECOA TANK I ta.
| |
| I I
| |
| L SPENT RESIN TANK CHDACAL WAS I( TANK T
| |
| I I
| |
| I I
| |
| I CHEMKAL WASTE TANK I CENTRIFUGE 8Y-PASS 2: I I
| |
| I I
| |
| WASTE COLLKIOR TANK CROSS TIE I CEMTRIFUEA GRAVITY RETURN I
| |
| I
| |
| ~TE BLDG FLOOR DEN M EUSSY I I
| |
| I I
| |
| CH OMICAL ADDITION (CAUSTIC) I FUEL POOL F/D BACKWASM CHEMKAL ADDITION (ACID) I'EL ~ML f/0 VENT I I
| |
| I RHR FLUSH I FLOOR,DRNII fUEL POOL RES;N TAIK SAMPLERS INSIE SAMILE TANKS CROSS TIE I
| |
| REACTOR B.OG fIOOR DRAIN BUMPS(4 WAS'IE COLLECTOR fILIER VELIT T.G BLDG fLOOR DRAIN SVMPS (2) WASTE COI.LECTOR FILTER RADWASTE FLOOR DRAIN SUMP CONDENSATE STORAGE FLMR DRAlu WASTE SLUDGE FLOOR DRAIN CO W ~R gAHK PHASE SE?ARA OR SAMPLE TAMK 2C,COO GAL p 20.000 GAL CAKING TOWER BLOWCOWN I3 000 GAL 1
| |
| I WkSN COLLSOLOR 0 FLOORORMMM<IOIXTRRKS~ CROSS NE f j ENTRIFLGES I
| |
| CONDEMN oHAS- SEPARATOR WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM FZlM DIAGRAM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 RADICQKTEVE WASTE SYSTEM Environmental Report FIDOR DRAIN PRX'.ESSING FIG - 3.5-3
| |
| | |
| e 4
| |
| | |
| CHEMICAL WASTE REACTOR BUILDING FUEL POOL PRECOAT TANK RWCV CHEMICAL WASTE NOTES:
| |
| I.VAIVfSIN5TRVMIHTAl IDRAWS,VENTS, f
| |
| UTILITYL~S, AVKIEIARY EOUPMEHT> TC~
| |
| NOT SHOWN TO PPIVZNT CLVTTfR FEIfE PCKL FILTER DEMINERAEIXER CHEMICaL ClfAN>NO CONNECTION Z AEE 'TANIES HAVf RfCIRC'AAT~M CAPABILITY.
| |
| CHEMICAL SUMP LEGEND WASTE COLLECTOR FILTER O P PVMP PRIORY FLOW PATH ACIfRHATf FlOW PATH HADWASTE FLOOR DRAIN SAMPLE TANK BUILDING FLOOR DRAIN FILTER RESIN FILL CONDENSATE FILTER OEMINERALIZEQ POLISHING OEMINERALIZER SPECIE REIN MISCELLANEOUS WASTL REACTOR BUILDING CONDENSER TANK CONDEN%R CHV"ICAL ADDITION TAX CAUSTIC ZOO GAL DECONTAMINATION DECOIITANIHATION HEATING SOLUTION SOLUTION HEATING E.LEMEHT CONCENTRATOR CONCENTRATOIZ ELENLHT DISTIEATE DISTIEATE O TANK TANK.
| |
| CHEMICAL IE225 GAL Ih225 GAL ADDITIONTANK DBE RGBJT ACID DRAIN IILTIR 200 GAL I
| |
| I I
| |
| S I RJ I I SI L O 2 4I gl 0 oI O I DETERGENT DETERGENT CHEMICAL CONDENSATE STORAGE O CHEMICAL CONCENTRATED COIICENTZAI DRAIN TANK 0"AIN TANK WASTE TANK WASTE TANK I
| |
| f530 GAL ~
| |
| p p WASTE TANK WASTE TANK ISSOGAL l4.ZZ5 GAL l4,2Z5 GAL TOOGAL .
| |
| TOO GAL BLOWDOWN LINE I
| |
| CONCENTRATED WASTE MEASV RING TANK
| |
| ~
| |
| I WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM FQN DIAGRAM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 CHEMICAL WASTE PROCESSING Environmental Report FIG ~ 3 5-4
| |
| | |
| -0 NOT1LS lVALVES INSTRUMENTS. COk&EWSATS DRAIN. MAIHICAIAAICCOPAAAS.UTILIIY UPS. ETC. NOT SHOWN TO PREVKN CLIITTSR INTER CATALYIIC CONOCl4SER STCAM DILUTCD OFP GAS RE. CON SI HER g FOR PPOCSSS PLOW CHARAC($4STICC SJAE SOS TASLS ILS IO O LEGEND II : WATER AIR SEPARATOR SJAE STEAM JCT AIR EJECTOR F FILTER AIR CONDENSATE
| |
| ~-PRIMARY FLCVI PATH ALTCILNATE PLOW PATH OFF. GAS CONDSHSATE CONDEN SER CONDENSATE I CA'TALYllG L SJAE SJAE ,PREHEATER RECOMSINER EQUIPMENT HOLD-UP LINE IO MINUTES CHARCOAL AOSOASSR VAUI'T VENT YOl DRYER C AS CHARCOAL ATMOSPI4CR COOI SR AOSOQSERS (<)
| |
| ASSEMSLY MOISTURE AIR SEPARATOR DRAINTO RADWASTK COI LECTIOM SYSTEM I
| |
| I COOLER I CONDCNSSR I I DRYER CHARCOAL GAS EQUIPMSNT COOI OIL 'ADSORSERS (4)
| |
| I A'SSEMSIY I I I COND ENS ATE I I
| |
| I I
| |
| I I
| |
| I I I I DRAIN TQ RADWASTK I I COI LECTION SYSTEM MOISTURE I I (TYP) SERARATOR DRAINTS RADWASTE I COLLECTION O'<STEM I
| |
| COOL'E R COIIDEIISER I
| |
| I I
| |
| COtsC4'HSAIT FD3H DLIGRM WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM PROCESS QPF~ SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 Q3W TEMPKQTURE N-67-1020 Environmental Report FIG. 3.5-5
| |
| | |
| .
| |
| ~ y ka
| |
| | |
| fJCiT E~
| |
| I.lAWIb iNSTRO&ENTS CoiefNLATf ORAiHL, MAINTTHANCf GRAiNS, VTiliTT LINES,E'TC NOT SHOWN TO PRTVTNT CLLITTfR 2.FOR PROCfSS FLOW CHARACTERISTICS Sf f TABLE 3.5- Ie T AM 5JAf STTALL
| |
| ~N JfT AlR fJTCIOR SJAE PRIMARY FLOIY PATH Al'lfANATE FlOW PATH
| |
| ~ ~ SAMPLINQ LIMf INTER-
| |
| ~OMDENSER STEAM DILUTED OFF%PS SJAE PRENEATER CATALYTIC BIMER S. EA,M DRAIN TO MAIN SJAE CONDENSER SAMPLING LIME I
| |
| WATER TO HOLD VP UNE IM RADWASTE BL¹ 5EPARATOR COMDENSATL I
| |
| MAIM CONDEN ATE OFF-GAS CONDENSATE CONDENSER I COMDE LJSE I I NL I NL I ALIALYLER I I ANALYZER I I I I I I I I I I I I I
| |
| I I
| |
| I L I
| |
| I I I I I I I
| |
| I I I I I I I I I I L 1 I
| |
| I I DRAIN TO MAIM I
| |
| I I
| |
| STEAM I
| |
| I I
| |
| I I
| |
| r I
| |
| I SAMPLIMG LINE I I
| |
| I I
| |
| COLIDEMSER I SJAE DRAIN TO MAIM I I CONDENSER I I I I I I I I INTER. I I I I I I
| |
| I CONDENSER fI KAE L PZENEATER
| |
| ~ CATALYTIC BIMER I I 5T EAM SJAE SAAAPLIMG LINE SAMPLlllG EOVIPMENT DRAIM TO RADWASTE COLLECTION SFS EM WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM FU3W DIAGRAM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 OFF~ PRCjGHSING TURBINE BUILDING Environmental Report FIG. 3.5-6
| |
| | |
| g C
| |
| ~ '%g =a
| |
| | |
| NOTES I VAlVES. INSTROMENTS CONDENSATE DRAINS. MAINTENANCE OQAtNS. ttttLIIY LINE'3, ETC, NOT SIIOWN tb PQSVCI4f CLIITTSR R FOR POOCCSS FLIAY CIIARACIERISTICS SKS 'TASLE 35-IS LS.I3eND DESI C C ANT O'RYSR SJAE. STEAM JEf AIR SJSCfOR F FILTER CHARCOAL AOSOQSSR (TYP)
| |
| &AS I
| |
| --~- PRiMARY FLOW PATRI At TERNATE FLOW PATRI RADIATION SAMPLE& l.lNE COOLS R I
| |
| I I e I T I L
| |
| ORTS'S DRYER YSNT <<O ATSR. CIIILLER ATMOSPttSQS PRAIR TO RAOWASTE COLLScttou emTEM MO SttAtE DESICCANT SEPARATOR DRYER AIR
| |
| + 4 I I I I OE51CCANf I I DRYS R I I I
| |
| HOLD~ UIIE COot.ER I I IO MINIITES CONDENSER I I I I I I I
| |
| I I I 4 I I I I I I I CONOSNSATS I CRY SQ I DRYER GAS I I NEATER CtttLLCR I COOI.SR I I I
| |
| I DRAIN 'fO RAOWASTC I COLLECTIOM SYSTEM I I
| |
| AIOISTIIRE I DRAIN,O RAOWASTE COLLSCTlOM SYSTEM r
| |
| SEPARATOR AIR
| |
| ~- I PROCCSS QAO1AtldN I MCNIIORINS EotIIPMENT I
| |
| I DES I CC ANT I DRYER COOLS R CCIIOENSER CONoeNute J I
| |
| I T
| |
| OeAtN to IIADWAtte cdtteet<dN setters FDN DIAGRAM WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 OFF~ PROCESSING SYSTEM RADWASTE BUILDING Environmental Report rIG. -3.5-7 e
| |
| IC
| |
| | |
| - ~
| |
| ~S IVALVSS, V4STRVMSNTATIOH ORRIS UIILIIVLINES, STC HOT SHOWN TO PRSVSNT CI.VTTSR
| |
| ~ ~WII STWO SVSTS'MS IN PARALLEL, SYSTEM tS OPSRATINS IN STIJL SY
| |
| 'OIIHA'AY COOl AP4T CIRCULATION CHILLSR PACKAGE COOLAl4f CIRCULATION I
| |
| I I
| |
| I I
| |
| I I AIR NANOLIN& AIR NANOUNS I UNIT UNIT I
| |
| I 55OO/I3COO CPM I
| |
| I I AIR NANOLINS S PMSNT ROOM CfC.GAS 20OO/4OOO CPM COOLER I ECIRCVLATIOI OOO CPM I
| |
| I I
| |
| I A C SOS I
| |
| I IPM I
| |
| I I
| |
| I I
| |
| I I
| |
| I I
| |
| o8 I 0PP-CAS PCOO/4OOO CPM COOLER I
| |
| A'IR NALQLIN& AIR NANOLI~
| |
| I UNIT IPIIT I
| |
| I I
| |
| I I 5'5OO/I OOO C.PLI I
| |
| I I
| |
| I I
| |
| I L COOLANT CIRCULATION CHILLER, PACKAGE COOLANT CIRCVI ATION WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM FIDN DIAGRMvL WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 HVAR.G. CHARQQAL ADSORHER VAULT Environmental Report HM3WASTE ~IKQ FIG-3 ~ 5 8
| |
| | |
| -
| |
| 0 O.
| |
| ~C
| |
| | |
| <<
| |
| '<<*<< D
| |
| \WC'~ i VO4faLTlOhs VN(f INC'VDINS ROIPSNINS FILTER,S1CPk4 NCATQ4S CCaL, Alt WASNER04%RATlN& SVPPIY ARRAN 4 ST~.ST AA.
| |
| E (NOOSE'u E SVWae~ ~OCR PURCyt SUPAV E CQVIPI4CMT ACCT~ AREA
| |
| '4, Vip RCCOMOINCR MCC ROOMS(~~
| |
| (WTN T C"SQ/eCNCY~SVS )
| |
| i ECOLVMA1OR AREA 3 OPAL OOOO 4 CVEL QOOI. NELTEXCNLNE4A,C POUND
| |
| 'Z SCNERAL AREA.WEST O MO CTlvl 91350 O. CRD MOOVLXS WCCf
| |
| ~IOC AIR 9 AC.VNIT IN ACCESS A'RCAi C~iKS ROC''OaR~NsuN(r CQ Drys~~
| |
| Il~~~ ~~
| |
| (Wtfll ONC CMCRSCNCY COOLQISSYS)
| |
| IS
| |
| ~
| |
| IT SNVf Oawll CCxx I<<44<<SISPl V PJCk. CRO QOV<<PMCs4f LOIN 4 SWJl OWN C~yEINO A~) iS NCAA
| |
| <<OARCA VALVE RCKWA(GCNWAL IO l2 s Ig RNt( pv"p Roasse~Ltis(vntN NREE Vsse T CMERsc cv clou~ cvsfc"3)
| |
| El\Dc LlccRooM(DwTXQIIN(Hi COOLINS SYSTVPA ME~
| |
| I I I R<<S~ OY LIOVIO ~T$ OL SVSTCM AREA 39 8I I
| |
| 4 R(~i~~OOQPli APE SPACC ANALYtHCQOIMV)44IIN:Itig I ROOMIS(WlTHTVCICMCRSCN Y COOUNCe SA~SI NI ~O NIQ IESSRRM- i SLSMEklMCATAMA I
| |
| I I
| |
| Nbt tll 4 NEW FV6, M>LAIC VAVLT l%RHR NT QXCAANSCR WC%
| |
| c~~
| |
| ~
| |
| A'o ResEI4 I INN RcseN.NEAT T(~ ~CONP.
| |
| ZtCRP RQO MOOVLCS
| |
| '~s JCCKSlb PJ3EAC RPS Q%CC X(b CACCE~
| |
| KASf CPIPC I'solve Mcc RccN (AA wJ4ouNC vN "I (w~ aa cecal caouus svs~)
| |
| 'ACRO RCMIR ROCM Z56CNERPL ARXAiLlCVTQON Mau~nvS DRIVC l4CCNANIOM AQCA.
| |
| t4'TIP R SNITDSA4 COOLQ46(OOPA JktAi vllVC ACC,455 AREA YZLRNR PVHP RM ALPCS POMP QM g iNPCS ASAP RM ta WlfH 'TNRCC ENSA4CNCf COOLINS SVST&49)
| |
| RLSCNCRAI. AR'EA
| |
| 'K CRD PVMP DVMP RldH R~ 4 JVCII ORf CORO.
| |
| 3R VAIR MJC,IDNC ROOM I 3(,EQNPMCNT ACCKSS AREA 31.%lEVAT(Q'l4CNINE ROOM E ilblLKT 55FVKL /004 54RtACRA ~LL 24 23 22 2I 2o l9 I(3 l7 l5 l3 35KXb&t ~OR
| |
| ~SCR EOOL 34RNR Nr
| |
| : 31. SVMF VENT Ea"AVSf EIIJKR ROOM's i MI"C~A (OC OP%RkAl4S ONC STAND SY
| |
| ~Q I I SSYKMI~ SVS CCMISTCR, AN KLSCAtlC.NQPZlN&
| |
| pe 4(
| |
| yC )g I COII A ROVSNINS TlLtER,l%$%ACRR CWRCOkL AL1KR WtlH DELVSE'WQ i
| |
| ASCEMELY EXHAUST PAI4)
| |
| %OMAN SICAM 4)4CI COOLEID SV 1%A AIR HANDLINS VNIIS SJCN I
| |
| OOOO C~
| |
| 3%EXN PK AIR CPh4S(ONC
| |
| ~aa'INS CONK O
| |
| ~
| |
| STANDEY:
| |
| 0 R RADIAYIOI4 MOLIIIORSCWCCCAtOAS (IDLER SIRDAR~ OCI%CIORS C EOVR R IATNNMOHITOAS4 INOICA(N'SC EPCN RECOURSE(3) 0 OC>KJCKS~Kf SPAC,C IS SCRVED 8Y QSACRR N~S4Hl&ENCr COOLINS SYOff<<MS 0 ,0 r~=- I "I~I<
| |
| 37 35 32 p ~ II/ 3I 30 29 2S 27 2(o ol QO I
| |
| f) I (J
| |
| WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM FDM DIAGRAM HFATING 6 VENTILATION SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 REAC1QR BUILDING Environmental Report FIG. 3 5-9
| |
| | |
| . 0
| |
| - ~
| |
| C
| |
| | |
| ~C I.ROUGHING FILTER
| |
| : 2. STEAM HEATING COIL 3AI R WASHER OUTSIDE AIR 32.430 CCM 4CENTRIFUGCL FANS(ONE OPERATING 4 ONE STAND BY) 5AQER E.XHAUST AREA 4 AIR NANDUNG UNIT SERVING I OFFICE,MENS/LowER ROOM/HOT 3 COLD SHOWERS I TOILET.WOMENS LOCKER ROOMS NOT I COLD SHOVJEL9 I TOILET(NEALTiiPNVQCS AREA) 2 OFF4aAS EOUIPMENT ROOM, BOFDGAS EOUIPMENT REMOVAL AREA 9 ELEVATOR MACHINE ROOM IO.FILTER VALVE I puMP ROOM ILCORRIDOR BETWEEN VALVE AREA-23 ZIO/ZZJOO CFM ACCESS AREJ Iz. ACCESS. AREA.CENTRIFUGE ROOM I MWR TANK Is CORJJDOR OUTSIDE PRECCAT ARL (CONTAMINATIONROOM.
| |
| aa, 4. l4. PRECOAT ROOIaI V V V iS VESTIBu(EJOFF.GAS FILTER R(."sl O a I C EOIXPMEMT ACCESS AREA 3KUJPJa O
| |
| sl TRUCK AREA.DRUM/CASKPERATIN(
| |
| I STORAGE AREAS. DECONTAMIIJATKJ.
| |
| ARLA,J HOPPER MIXER ROOM IZ TAIJK CORRIDOR IO NL REFRICkRATIOLl EOUIIaML4JT ARE<
| |
| l9 DRYER EOUIPMENT ROOMS, VEST-aaa IBULE VALve JJJOM.CJJOLER I MOISTURE E()VIPMEHT ROOM O
| |
| I 20 PUMP AREAs I TANK R00Ms Zl. DIESEL GENERATOR CABLE CORRIDOR sZZ.AI R CLEANING WITS IN RADIO CUE M. LABORATORY
| |
| ~ 23, AIR CLJANING UNIT IN SNJPLE ROOM IT,GOO CPM s24 AIR CLEAN4JG UNIT IN MECNJaH ICAL EOINPMENT AREA zR AIR NAJILIHGUNITv(ouNIING8cM 29,900 CFJ4 2AAIR HANDUNG UN<~ilKAL LABORATORY a 'a 22 AIR HAND(INC UNIT/SAMPLE ROOM Zi)a EOUIPMENT ARL-A 29 CORRIDOR 30 DEMINERAIJZATIONREMOVAL ROOM La la. s 3L AIR HANDUNG4AIR CLUING UN@.
| |
| u HOT iNStRUMEHT SHOP.
| |
| O O
| |
| ~ A 32.HOT MACNINE ROOM
| |
| : 33. AIR NANDUNG UNIT/RADIIIASTE CONTROL RDQM 434,AIRCLEANING UNIT A WilN 2I 20 19 l7 15 la l3 IZ, DELUGE VALVE ASSEMBLY S3SAIR CIEANING UNIT 'B WITIJ aa aa DELJJGE VALVE ASSEMBLY
| |
| 'u S 34 AIR CLEANING UJJIT C WITH a
| |
| 0 R DELUGE VALVE ASSEMBLY O'+ a RADIATIOM MONITOR a
| |
| Qu g Ja - AIR CLEANING UNITS CONSISTIIXaOF aa.E 0 O O ~O ROUGHIIJG FILTER; NEPA FILTER, 0 O aaa afg O m AND EXHAUST FAM aaa a
| |
| 30,000 CFI4 85 29 3ZO/30430 CAJI
| |
| ~a O
| |
| N a V V V u4 9
| |
| 33 32 3) 30 29 '8 a 27 b
| |
| 25 O IK 24 0
| |
| 23 22 O
| |
| O I
| |
| X V
| |
| aa
| |
| 'u I
| |
| aa O
| |
| O 'V Ia.
| |
| V O
| |
| V caa O
| |
| O 8 8 aaJ aVf 0 4SO CFM PIQW DIAGRAM WASHINGTON PUBLIC, POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM ZADPmSZE BUILDING HEM".ENG WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 AND V mrueZCN SYSTEM Environmental Report FIG. 3.5-10
| |
| | |
| - ~
| |
| C
| |
| | |
| '.CPENO 4 50 CM 430 CPM Ikllo.'orAIR WASWER SYSTEM C055555tl55(5 ICA (RcucMA .FIL~ wtAT Na co<4 OUTMOC AIR WATS SPRAY SECTl0555 4 Surly CVR Clc \
| |
| l49 500 Cl'M F4900 CFM 23 R .45R 24lt5, SAMC AS A I IS EXCEPT FOR CAP)CI()K RtCIRC AIR 3, ExwAOST PLENuM '.5 txwAustto sY CCM 55450 CCM TwRCE OPERAT5N45 St*AO ST FAN t
| |
| CAtS 054)
| |
| MR IB 2555530 clwq ouTSIOS All(
| |
| 4 CORRIOOR B.KV 50XC
| |
| : 5. CSENSPAl)R 4 CXCITRR AREA MANS TCII.KT 25 IRC AIR RECIRC, AIR (500 TO tAST COI>>L 8us c)oct AREA I 200 ltoO CFM 5' g SWITCWE54AR AREA SOO CROM M- '2 (3 CCRR50CR rcLSV. 41 I W
| |
| : 9. ME)5'5 TO( LC(S ( Q. 5542 4 SL44'W) 50500550ENSATC puMps AREA I I.CCAORNSATC SCOSTKR PIX455 AREA 52 COO 55000 lg (500 4 55455 5 TCXLST tco TC 5 15 5254)h5CRAL VCS S ARSA (5 44545 )
| |
| l5, Wt SRAI Oll. ROOM SM ~ 5 ~ CF(RATP555 CuCOA l4. ELEVATOR SOIXPMC5NT ROOM 555 CREN%RAL CAST AREA( 5050 4 55500tc Cl EL41 IWCc)
| |
| I(C 2IOCO o 54 I K5 COICOSICSER AREA Il)CATCRS AREA Iatucctcxt Ccl. RSSSRICIR 5COCCM CRIM 53 5%CORRIDOR (l 4TIX) I 7 30000 25. N W CC555COR 17 ts E.w c(RROOR SCO CCM CRC54 0 55,005 FROM tt SOLER ROPM tA AIR IIAOO555(~ uccct 24 152&55%. OILTREAS5(5F AREA 5coT 1 Coo TC t 35oo 25 OEIIERAL EAsr AREA 2(4 AR CowPRSSSCR AREA 19 IS tl TR)ASCORMER R0054S 22( AIR t)ECTOR AR51AS 'Ag S
| |
| = =5 4'TI.O MSZ2ANINS 2% REACNR Ftwo PVMP A'REA Ac S TO N(5250CR IN 35 vACI)5)M PVMP AREA A~OSPw ERS ~ 400 CFM TWR) EN( C)R 2oo FRCMP5 2CO FRCMr>>
| |
| 1200 tc 21 20 Rccwhttt 8go ) 3(
| |
| 33 CORR5COR 32>>Y~
| |
| SAMPLt ANALvztR ROOM ROOM(F)LTERP5SIP)IT4 AIR CC55R CP)IT)
| |
| )A CO550(54SER S5RAO()
| |
| 1 15 55 35 PIPS PANEL TC20TO I 34 or'F OAS RSCO S NER AREA 22 o 15000 cr)4 Oc)TSIOE A)R 0 (2 R5N)IAT)OM MONITOR I M5 SooT55 Sl l35ccc) ccMFRccc 55 I
| |
| TO 5I tc 300 54000 500 I
| |
| TII 5 II I 24 205 24500 TI 34 FR(M ICJI(lt 4500RI 2) 2CAOOO CCM 2 OCC rrM To 35 ROM 5M 4so Tclr st 3I 4515 55 t8oo 320O Socio lp 555 54,5cc cFM FRPM t4,25 4 tu O)O 12 5300 FRcMrIS 555 To 53 l4 25 I r55554 I
| |
| 'Tlo TO 45000
| |
| ~
| |
| CCM 35 55 45050 54555 FRC54 55 5)CO TO lt '24C!010 Sl 53000 450 CCI4 CRCMPSI 255 so 5000 CPM CROM P 53I l3055o To 25 55PCO CCM CROM 55 BO l35O ~ 350(25550 FRC54 55 I
| |
| K EV 445 0 CPROOND 5~
| |
| FZOÃ DIAGRAM WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 TURBINE BUIZDZNG Environmental Report FIG. 3.5-11
| |
| | |
| O.
| |
| r
| |
| | |
| MOTS:
| |
| I, ZAsVES,INSTRUMEMTATIOM,GYERFLOX WASTE SLUDGE PNASE SEPARATOR DRAINS.MAINTENANCEDRAINS.
| |
| >TILITY LIMES,LTC MOT ENOWM 0 PREVENT CLUTTER SPENT RLSIN TANK LEGEND PUMP CLEAN-UP PRAT SEPARATOR 5 -MOTOR PRIMARY'LOW PATM ALTERNATE FLOW PATM COMDENSATL PIIASE SEPARATOR STATIC M<XSR wASTE SLUDGE PNASE SEPARATOR WASTE SLUDGE PMASE SEPARATOR CONDCNSATC CONCENTRATED WASTETANK rCONCENTRATED WASTE- TAMK (OVERFLOWI CENTRIFUGE'ENTRIFUGE WASTE MEAQRIIIG TANK.
| |
| WASTE SLUDGE. PNASE SEPARATOR CENTRIFUGE LIQUID EFFLUENT (GRAVITY RETURN) 5
| |
| 'V V
| |
| I CCNDfN SAl C POPPER MOPPER MIXER. MIXER gONDCNSXTC POLYMER TAMIL 50 CUE FT. SOCUF( CATALTS(
| |
| DISPOSABLE DISPOSABLE MIXING CONTAINER CONTAINER TANK WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM FUN DIAGRAM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 'ADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL SOLID HANDLING Environmental Report FIG. 3.5-12 "
| |
| | |
| -0 a
| |
| E
| |
| | |
| IIGTES.
| |
| I VAL+5 INST R ~Ni VTATKMOVERFLOW GRAINS,MA'NiENANCE CCMNSVTILITI LINES ETC NOT SOILS TO PREVENT CLUTTER.
| |
| ? PARALLEL COMPONENTS IgAY BE CONOCNIhIC OPERATEO SEPARATELY R iANCVRENTLY LEGEND
| |
| 'P'- PiiMP I HEAT EXCHANGER I PRIMARY PLOW PaTH I ALTERNATE RLCW PATH I
| |
| I PRECOAT RETURN PUEL POOL I
| |
| I I
| |
| I I PITTER CILTER I DEMI NERAUTE DEMINERALITR I
| |
| I IMMER SKI MME CON Dt NM4 f I SURGE. SURGE I IANiK TANK I I
| |
| I I PRECOAT SUPPLY I P I
| |
| I I
| |
| I I
| |
| I I
| |
| I WASTE SNDGE PHASE SERVVLTOR PRECOAT BACKWASH C I 0 I V I C I
| |
| ~v K I I
| |
| '+ Joie,CMpiIN.
| |
| OLINO iliiR CNEMKAL WASTE TANK POO'AIN N/X SUPPRESSION CONDENSER FIGHT WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO Environmental Report 2 (
| |
| ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~M S~M FMW DIAGRAM 3.5-l3
| |
| | |
| '
| |
| ~ %
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 3.6 CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE WASTES 3.6.1 General Waste waters discharged to the Columbia River will meet the requirements given in 40 CFR Part 423 "Effluent Limitations, Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gen-erating Point Source Category", issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, October 8, 1974. Waste water streams actually and potentially containing radionuclides will be processed in the liquid radwaste system as described in Section 3.5.2.
| |
| 3.6.2 Chemical Waste Treatment S stem The makeup water demineralizer produces low dissolved solids makeup water by ion exchange, for plant use. Periodically, the makeup water demineralizing equipment requires regeneration to restore the ion exchange capacity. The regeneration pro-cess requires a maximum of approximately 180 lbs of 66o Be sulfuric acid and 192 lbs of 100% sodium hydroxide. Excess regenerant. chemicals are collected along with rinse waters from the regeneration cycle, neutralized and tested before discharge to the heat dissipation system.
| |
| The total volume of waste water produced by one demineralizer regeneration cycle, is approximately 9100 gallons, with a typical composition as shown in column D, Table 3.6-1. When operating on average composition river water, the makeup water demineralizer will produce approximately 110,000 gallons of demineralized water to service, per cycle. Normal operating plant demand will require on the order of 5 gallons per minute of demineralized water makeup, so that the regeneration of this equipment will be infrequent.
| |
| The total plant is being built "clean" so that conventional chemical cleaning prior to start-up is not anticipated. In the future, if chemical cleaning is required, cleaning wastes will not be discharged to the Columbia River.
| |
| 3.6.3 Heat Dissi ation S stem The removal facilities are discussed in Section 3.4. The evaporation of water in the cooling towers will cause solids concentrations in the circulating water to increase as dis-cussed in Section 3. 3. Control of the cooling water chem-istry is required to preclude reductions in plant efficiency and service life. This includes adjustment of the pH of the circulating water to maintain a non-scaling and non-corros-ive condition; intermittent chlorination to control biologi-cal growths such as slimes, algae and fungi; and the blowdown or withdrawal of a portion of the circulating water to con-
| |
| : 3. 6-1
| |
| | |
| trol the dissolved solids concentration. Typical composi-tion of the Columbia River water used for cooling makeup, is shown on Table 3.6-1, (columns A, B, C). The composition of the water in the heat dissipation system which will be the same as the cooling tower blowdown is shown on Table 3.6-1 (columns E, F, G).
| |
| Sulfuric acid is added to the circulating water to maintain the circulating water pH in the range of 6.5-8.5, for scale and corrosion control. The anticipated sulfuric acid con-sumption will be in the range of 1700-3400 lbs/day. If the pH of the circulating water, hence the cooling tower blow-down water, should fall below 6.5 or rise above 8.5, ope-rating alarms within the plant will alert the operating per-sonnel who will initiate corrective action.
| |
| It is anticipated that. adequate corrosion control in the heat dissipation system can be maintained by pH control by means of the addition of sulfuric acid and the control of the dissolve'd solids in the system by the means of blowdown.
| |
| No other corrosion or scale inhibitors are to be used.
| |
| Condenser tubing is 94% admiralty and 6% 70-30 copper-nickel. Erosion/corrosion of the tubes is expected to contribute a copper concentration of 35 to 110 micrograms per liter to the cooling tower blowdown effluent at ten (10) cycles of concentration.
| |
| Wood has not been used in the construction of the cooling tower or as a fill material. Therefore, chemical preserva-tives will not be extracted and discharged to the river.
| |
| The cooling tower fill material is corrugated asbestos cement strips, 3/16" thick, supported by fiberglass re-inforced polyester grids. The fill is 18% asbestos by weight. Based on conservative estimates of erosion rates the concentration of asbestos in blowdown is expected to,be less than 0.02 ppm.
| |
| Biological growths on heat transfer surfaces result in fouling and a loss of efficiency. Also, algae, slimes and bacterial growths can cause an increase in the corrosion rate of metal surfaces. Therefore, biological activity in the heat dissipation system will be controlled by chlorination.
| |
| It is anticipated that about 240 lbs/day of chlorine will be injected, intermittently into the circulating water line up-stream of the main condenser.
| |
| : 3. 6-2 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Chlcrine dosage will be automatically controlled so that a concentration of about 0.5 ppm will be present after the condenser, in the water going to the cooling tower, during periods of chlorinator operation. A small portion of this will be dispersed to the atmosphere and the remainder ef-fectively consumed by the small quantities of organic matter present in the circulating water. During the time the chlo-rine is added, the cooling tower blowdown valve will closed.
| |
| It will remain closed until the total residual chlorine concentration has been at or below 0.1 mg/1 for 15 minutes.
| |
| The total cumulative operating time of the chlorination system will not exceed 2 hrs/day. Interrupting the blowdown flow during periods of chlorinator operation and for a short period afterwards, assures compliance with the NPDES Permit (see Appendix IV).
| |
| The anticipated composition of the cooling tower blowdown is given in Table 3.6-1. This discharge flow will be essentially continuous during normal operation, except during periods of chlorinator operation and for a brief period afterwards.
| |
| A small portion of the circulating water will be lost from the cooling towers in the form of small droplets. This "drift" is of the same composition as the circulating water containing some dissolved and suspended solids (Table 3.6-1).
| |
| Drift eliminators are incorporated in the design of the cooling towers so as to limit the drift to a maximum of 285 gpm, as discussed in Section 3.4. The total solids contained in the drift would amount to about 1,425 lbs per day under full load conditions (assuming a drift rate of 0.05%). The deposition of drift in the vicinity of the cooling towers is discussed in Section 5.1.4.
| |
| 3.6-3 Amendment 3 January 1979
| |
| | |
| Q>> j>>
| |
| TABLE 3'.6-1
| |
| 'ATER COMPOSITION
| |
| 'COLUMB'IA'IVERS'' DEMINERAL'IZER WASTETH COOLING TOWER BLOWDOWN D
| |
| 'o'lumbi'a River Demineralizer Wast'e '~oolin Tower Blowdown A~v ~ Ilax. Min. A~v ~ liax. Min.
| |
| ++
| |
| Calcium, Ca ppm 23 32 18 309 116 -160 90
| |
| ++
| |
| Magnesium, Mg ppm 7 2 52 21 34 10
| |
| +
| |
| Sodium, Na ppm 5 0 1466 12 24 Bicarbonate, HC03 ppm 72 80 50 514 92 92 92 Carbonate, C03 ppm Sulfate, S04 ppm 15 28 10 3495 236 415 109 Chloride, Cl ppm 1 2.6 0.2 56 13 Nitrate, N03 ppm 0.24 0.62 0 32 1.24 3.1 Phosphate,
| |
| >>
| |
| P04 ppm 0.03 0.13 0 0.06 0.63 Total Hardness ppm CaC03 74 88 64 988 375 540 265 Total Alkalinity ppm CaC03 63 76 41 422 150 150 150 pH 8.7 9.1 8-8.5 8.3 7.5 8.5 6.5 Silica, Si02 ppm 6 9 3 76 30 45 Dissolved Soilds, ppm 87 115 72 6022 435 600 360
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL 3.7 SANITARY AND OTHER WASTES
| |
| .7.1 ~5 A septic tank/drain field system was originally selected for'reatment and disposal of sanitary wastes. The installed system was designed for plant operation on the basis of 100 persons at 25 gallons per capita per day. Construction phase wastes were treated in temporary septic tank/
| |
| tile fields or hauled offsite to a sewage lagoon. With the buildup of a construction force at WNP-1 and WNP-4, concurrently with the construc-tion activity at WNP-2, the Supply System chose to build a central waste treatment system to serve the three plants and the Emergency Response/
| |
| Plant Support Facility. This system will also provide treatment during maintenance/refueling outages when much larger than normal work forces are on site.
| |
| The sanitary waste treatment system uses aerated lagoons in series with lined facultative stabilization ponds. Flow from the ponds is dosed to four percolation/evaporation beds with a combined area of about two acres. The percolation beds are located about 45 feet above the water table and'here is no discharge to a surface water course. Wastes are delivered to the treatment plant via a gravity collection system. The treatment system is sized (0.17 mgpd) to accommodate the largest antici-pated combined construction/operation work force for the three nuclear plants. During normal power plant operation, when the flow will average 0.05 mgpd, the aerated lagoons can be bypassed. The location of the facility and arrangement of the ponds are shown in Figure 3.7-1.
| |
| 3.7.2 Storm Water and Roof Drains Storm water and roof drains will be collected in a separate drain system and routed to an evaporation/leach area located at about N12600, W325 (see Figure 2.1-4).
| |
| 3.7.3 Filter Backwash Water Periodically, filter backwash water from the makeup demineralizer sys-tem, is routed to the evaporation/leach area. The filters accumulate and store backwash water that is released at a flow rate of up to 525 gpm for a period of about 5 minutes per week.
| |
| 3.7.4 Gaseous Wastes During plant shutdown and outages, a diesel oil fired auxiliary boiler furnishes auxiliary steam and heating. In addition, three standby die-sel generators will operate on an infrequent, intermittant basis.
| |
| Amendment 5 July 1981
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL The three standby diesel engine driven generators will be test run for about one (1) hour monthly. Also, each generator set will be operated at full load for 24 hours at least once during an 18 month period. Two of the units consume 340 gph of fuel, each at full load, while the third will use 170 gph at full load. Assuming full load operation, with a fuel oil sulfur content of 0.4X, this equipment will exhaust about 1400 lbs of S02, 980 lbs of NOX and 34 lbs of particulates per year.
| |
| The heating boiler provides building heat and supplies steam to the rad-waste system, when needed. It is expected that the equivalent of only three months at 25K of full load operation, will be required'annually.
| |
| The heating boiler, consuming No.2 fuel oil, containing 0.4X sulfur will produce approximately 13,650 lbs of S02, 9,800 lbs of NOX, and 340 1bs of particulates per year .
| |
| 3.7-2 Amendment 5 July 1981
| |
| | |
| 7 Amendment 5, July 19S1 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM SANITARY WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 Environmental Report FIG. 3. 7-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 3.8 REPORTING OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL MOVEMENT Generation of electrical energy in a nuclear power plant requires periodic shipment of new fuel assemblies to the plant, spent fuel assemblies to a fuel reprocessing or storage facility, and packaged low level radioactive materials to licensed waste burial grounds. The shipments are made in compliance with fed-eral and state requirements pertaining to the proper packaging and transportation of the materials.
| |
| 3.8.1 New Fuel 3.8.1.1 Description New fuel for the WNP-2 plant is made of slightly enriched ura-nium dioxide ceramic fuel which has been compacted and sintered to form very dense pellets having high strength and high melting point. The pellets are about 0.41 inch in diameter, 0.41 inch long, and are stacked in Zircaloy-2 tubing to provide an active
| |
| ,fuel length of 150 inches with a plenum left at the top end to provide for collection of gas generated during the fission pro-cess. The tubes are welded shut at both ends and are subjected to rigorous quality control to ensure their integrity.
| |
| Sixty-two fuel rods and two water rods (tubes of Zr-2 cladding without UO fuel) are assembled in an eight-by-eight array to form a fuel bundle. Each fuel bundle will contain fuel rods of either five or seven different enrichments, whose average bundle enrichments will be approximately 1.8 or 2.2 percent U-235 for the first core. The reload fuel will have average bundle enrichments in the range of 2.4 to 3.0 percent U-235.
| |
| A fuel assembly consists of a fuel bundle weighing approximately 615 pounds and a fuel channel weighing 83 pounds. The fuel channel is used to control coolant flow within the reactor core.
| |
| Normally the channel will be reused and assembled at the plant site with a new fuel bundle. The reactor core will contain a total of 764 fuel assemblies.
| |
| 3.0.1.2 New Fuel Shi ment Prior to shipment, plastic spacers are inserted between the fuel rows of rods in the fuel assembly to provide protection for the against the normal shock and vibration during transport and to assure that, when the fuel is placed into the reactor, the pro-per spacing has been maintained between the fuel rods for heat transfer purposes. New fuel assemblies are enclosed in a plastic bag and placed in a metal container which provides insulation for 's fire protection and which supports the fuel assembly This along entire length during the course of transportation. .to metal container also provides necessary impact protection meet drop 3m 3 1 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER test requirements provided for in NRC regulations. The metal container is gasketed and bolted shut, then placed into an outer wooden box. The fuel properties and a typical description of the fuel shipping containers follows:
| |
| NEW FUEL PROPERTIES AND CONTAINER DESCRIPTION Fuel Pro erties Container Descri tion
| |
| : 1) No radioactive fission 1) Metal container in wooden products box
| |
| : 2) Non radioactive gases 2) Dimensions:
| |
| : 3) High melting point, insoluble Metal container, 11" x 18 1/2" x 182" long Wooden box, 33" x 32" x 207" long
| |
| : 3) Capacity two BWR assemblies
| |
| : 4) Weights:
| |
| Empty 1400 pounds Loaded 2800 pounds There are no components of the package or its contents which are subject to chemical reaction in the normal transportation environment. The package connot be opened inadvertently, uses no coolant, and has no lifting devices or tie-down attachments.
| |
| During normal transport conditions, containment integrity and nuclear safety are not significantly affected by ambient tem-peratures, +0.5 psi pressure differntials or road vibrations.
| |
| 3.8.1.3 Method and Fre uenc .of Shi ments The General Electric Company is responsible for shipment of the initial core fuel assemblies from its fabrication plant at Wil-mington, North Carolina, to the WNP-2 reactor site, a distance of about 3000 miles. This fuel will be shipped .by truck in quantities of up to 16 shipping containers per load, each con-taining two fuel assemblies, thereby providing a maximum of 32 fuel assemblies per truck shipment. About 24 shipments will be received at the plant for the initial core.
| |
| Reload fuel assemblies will be shipped from the Exxon Nuclear Company plant located less than ten miles from the WNP-2 plant site. About 180 fuel assemblies will be required annually.
| |
| : 3. 8-2 'Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Inherent in the generation of power by a nuclear reactor is the fact that fissionable isotopes in the nuclear fuel are depleted to the extent that they need to be replaced with new fuel. However, the spent, fuel, which has essentially the same weight as fresh fuel, still contains fissionable uranium and plutonium. Although these materials could be recovered in a fuel reprocessing facility and re-used in fabricated fuel assemblies, current policy is to indefinitely defer commerical reprocessing and recyling of the plutonium produced in the U.S. nuclear power programs. The Supply System will continue to closely monitor both government policy and development concerning spent fuel disposition, reprocessing, and plutonium recycle.
| |
| Present planning calls for storage of the spent fuel in the plant spent fuel pool until at least 1988. Because of the installation of additional spent fuel storage capacity, loss of full core discharge capability should not occur prior to 1993 for WNP-2, and the pool should have sufficient capacity for reloads until at least 1998. In is anticipated, however, that by the 1990's the ultimate disposition of the spent fuel, whether it will be temporarily stored and later reprocessing, or whether it withdrawn for will be regarded as waste and ulti-mately disposed of in a pemanent repository, will be known.
| |
| Spent fuel removed from the reactor during annual refueling contains, on a weight basis, in excess of 99.99 percent, of the fission products formed inside the fuel. These fuel assemblies are temporarily stored in the spent fuel pool at the plant after removal from the reactor core. This spent fuel is covered by about ten feet of water at all times which serves as a radiation shield and coolant while the short-lived fission products decay. During this period, the fuel assemblies are monitored to identify "leaking" fuel elements so that they may be canned prior to insertion in shipping casks, thereby reducing even further the remote likelihood of a release of fission products. The temporary storage period will be a minimum of 180 days to allow for decay of short-lived fission products.
| |
| The planned average fuel bundle burnup over the plant lifetime will be approximately 27.,500 megawatt days per metric ton (MWD/tonne). It is expected, however, that the burnups could vary from 10,000 MWD/tonne to 35,000 MWD/tonne for individual discharges.
| |
| : 3. 8. 2. 2 S ent Fuel Shi ment The NRC and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations specify both normal and accident conditions against which a package designer must evaluate any radioactive material packaging.
| |
| : 3. 8-3 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER These conditions are intended to assure that the package has the required ~integrity to meet, all conditions which may be encountered during the course of transportation. The normal shipping conditions require that the package bg able to withstand conditions ranging from -40 F to 139 F and to withstand the normal vibrations, shocks, and wetting that would be incident to normal transport. In addition, the packages are required to withstand specified test conditions with the release of no radioactivity except for slightly contaminated coolant and up to 1,000 curies of radioactive noble gases. The test conditions for which the package must be designed include, in sequence, a 30-foot free fall onto a completely unyielding surface, followed by a 40-inch drop onto a six-inch diameter pin, followed by 30 minutes in a 1475 F fire, followed by eight hours immersion in three feet of water.
| |
| Prior to use, the proposed container design and transport system are reviewed and approved by NRC and DOT, and tran-sportation is authorized by an NRC license. Lincense provisions include adequate quality assurance and testing programs to assure the equipment is constructed and used in accordance with approved desgins and procedures. After loading, containers are decontaminated and carefully surveyed and inspected to assure that they have. been properly prepared for shipment and are in full compliance with license provisions governing transportation. The container is also labeled in accordance with federal regulations.
| |
| 3.8.2.3 Method and Fre uenc of Shi ment There is presently a considerable diversity of shipping methods proposed for the very heavy irradiated fuel containers, ranging from legal weight truck shipments which will ship approximately two BWR fuel assemblies at a time to large rail casks which will ship as many as thirty BWR fuel assemblies at. a time.
| |
| Shipment of 200 spent fuel assemblies from the WNP-2 plant would annually involve about 100 truck shipments or ten rail shipments.
| |
| Since the plant will have rail access, it is expected that spent fuel will be shipped exclusively by rail. Truck shipments are planned only for those few assemblies left over from rail shipments.
| |
| 3.8.3 Radwastes A variety of radioactive wastes will be shipped by truck or rail to duly licensed burial locations for disposal. Radioactive wastes shipped off-site during normal operation will be in the form of solids or solidified liquids in amounts as shown in Table 3.8-1. These wastes will include (activities are given in Table 3.5-22):
| |
| 3.8 4 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER
| |
| : a. RWCU f'Lter demineralizer spent resins
| |
| : b. Condensate filter demineralizer spent resins
| |
| : c. Fuel pool demineralizer spent resins
| |
| : d. Radwaste demineralizer spent resins
| |
| : e. Radwaste filter sludges
| |
| : f. Evaporator bottoms
| |
| : g. Miscellaneous solid wastes The miscellaneous solid wastes include spent control rods and fuel channels, small pieces of contaminated instruments and instrument cable, filter cartridges, contaminated tools, and compressible radioactive solid waste. The compressible radio-active solid waste will include contaminated clothing, paper, and rags. Processing of these miscellaneous solid wastes prior to shipment off-site is discussed in Section 3.5.4.
| |
| 3.8.3.2 Radioactive Waste Shi ment Fifty and one-hundred cubic foot steel containers will be uti-lized for packaging the majority of the solid wastes to be shipped for off-site disposal. Off-site shipment of packaged material will be contracted to a firm specializing in the transportation of solid wastes. This specialist will hold the necessary permits and licenses and be responsible for the ship-ment in transit. In conformance with Federal Regulations, the Supply System will be responsible to assure that the site packaged containers are sealed and labeled properly.
| |
| The low activity compressible waste will generally be packaged for shipment in steel drums. Spent fuel radioactive equipment and other solid waste components will be shipped by contract with a specialist in the field who will provide the necessary containers, such as modified spent fuel casks.
| |
| 3.8.3.3 Method and Fre uenc of Shi ment The expected quantities of radiactive waste materials to be shipped from the WNP-2 plant are shown on Table 3.8-1 and are detailed in Section 3.5, Radwaste Systems and Source Term. It is expected that all low-level radioactive waste will be buried on the Licensed burial site on the Hanford Reservation a distance of about ten miles from the WNP-2 plant site.
| |
| Demineralizer resins, filter sludges, and evaporator bottoms are collected in the plant and dewatered and solidified into fifty and one-hundred cubic foot containers. The packaged wastes are then stored as necessary to allow decay of short lived isotopes.
| |
| 3.8-5 Amendment, 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Storage area is provided for a minimum of 60 days decay time.
| |
| The waste containers will be placed in shielded shipping casks as required to comply with the limitations of 49 CFR and placed on flatbed trucks for shipment to the burial site.
| |
| low-level wastes in 55-gallon drums will also
| |
| 'ompressible be shipped by truck to the burial site. Zt is not expected that additional shielding will be required for these wastes.
| |
| Radioactive equipment components will be stored in the spent fuel pool until a sufficient amount is accumulated for a ship-ment. They will be shipped by contract with a specialist in the field who will provide the necessary containers.
| |
| : 3. 8. 4 Summar of Radioactive Material Movement A summary of the principal shipments of radioactive materi'als, type of transportation systems and the estimated distance involved in shipment of radioactive materials to and from the WNP-2 site appears as Table 3.8-1.
| |
| 3.8-6 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| TABLE 3.8-1 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL MOVEMENT
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| Vehicle Radioactive Transportation Material Shipment Quantity Miles Material Mode ~Qnantit New Fuel Initial Core Truck 764 Assemblies 3000 Mi. 32 Assemblies 72,000 Reloads Truck 180 Assemblies 10 Mi. 32 Assemblies 0 Per Yr.
| |
| 60 60 60 Spent Fuel Rail 200 Assemblies Unknown (3) 18 Assemblies 0 (2)
| |
| Per Yr.
| |
| Radwastes Sludges &
| |
| Resins Truck 9850 Ft 3 /Yr. or 10 Mi. 3 Containers 420 100 Containers 420 420 420 420 Miscellaneous Og'te Solids Truck 100 Drums 10 Mi. 50 Drums 20 20 oo O'0 20
| |
| $9 20 5$ 20 Vlt (1) One-way distance (2) No fuel discharge from spent fuel pool anticipated until at least 1988.
| |
| (3) Ultimate disposition of spent fuel as yet unknown. Refer to discussion in paragraph 3.8.2.1.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 3.9 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES 3.9.1 General Descri tion of Facilities The Bonneville Power Administration is planning, designing, and constructing the 500 KV transmission and 230 KV start-up lines and the H. J. Ashe Switching Station for WNP-2. BPA has submitted an environmental statement(1) concerning these facilities. The information in this Section is taken from that report.
| |
| To provide power for the construction of WNP-2, a 115 KV line was erected in 1972. This line comes from the Bonneville Power Administration's Benton Switching Station utilizing a 115 KV line that extends from'ection 3, Township 11 North, Range 28 East. The interconnecting line to WNP-2 is slightly over 1 mile in length and requires a 90 foot right-of-way. After plant start-up, the 115 KV line will be used as an emergency back-up power source for WNP-2. This is an existing line, and will not be considered in the following sections.
| |
| 3.9.1.1 500 KV Tr'ansmission Line This transmission line will be the primary transmission-line originating at WNP-2 (See Figure 3.9-1). It travels 1/2 mile making connection to the BPA Ashe Substation, then 18 miles northwest to the 500 KV Hanford switchyard. The entire line is within the Hanford Reservation and will be approximately 18.3 miles in length, requiring a 125 foot right-of-way (See Route "A", Figures 10.9-1 and 10.9-2) .
| |
| Lattice steel, single circuit, delta configuration, 500 KV towers will be used on this line (See Figure 3.9-2). The towers will average 123 feet in height and 44 feet in width.
| |
| The average spacing between towers will be 1,150 feet. Three conductors will be used for this line with the average con-ductor ground clearance being 51 feet. Land requirements for each tower will average 400 square feet. See Table 3.9-1 for this line's electrical characteristics.
| |
| 3.9.1.2 230 KV Start-U Line This three conductor transmission line (A-HEW03) will extend from the existing Bonneville Power Administration 230 KV grid connection, located in Section 32, Township 13 North, Range 27 East, East Williamette Meridian to the H. J. Ashe sub-station. This interconnection is approximately 10.1 miles long and will require a 125 foot right-of-way (See Figures 3.9-3 and Route "A" 10.9-1) .
| |
| Lattice steel, single circuit, flat configuration, 230 KV towers will be used on this line (See Figure 3.9-2) . Steel
| |
| : 3. 9-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER from existing towers, taken from a BPA line to be removed, will be used for the towers of this line. The towers will average approximately 80 feet in height with a base 28 feet square and a span length between towers averaging 1,150 feet.
| |
| Three conductors will be used for this line with the average conductor ground clearance being 47 feet. See Table 3.9-1 for this line's electrical characteristics.
| |
| 3.9.1.3 Howard J. Ashe Substation The H. J. Ashe substation, as shown in Figure 3.9-4, is being built by BPA to handle the WNP-2 500 KV transmission line and 230 KV start-up line. As shown in Figure 2.1-3, the Ashe substation is approximately 1/2 mile due north of WNP-2. The substation requires about 37 acres of land and an access road about 2,000 feet long for a total land, requirement of about 38 acres. Construction on the Ashe substation was completed in May, 1976.
| |
| 3.9.2 Environmental Parameters 3.9.2.1 Non-Ele'ctrical A total of 648 acres will be required for the right-of-way for the 500 KV and 230 KV lines. The land to be crossed by the transmission lines is shown in Figures 10.9-3 and 10.9-4.
| |
| A detailed discussion of the 500 KV and 230 KV routes impact on land, vegetation, wild life and their crossings of high-ways, railways, water-bodies, areas of acheological, histor-ical and recreational interest are discussed in Section 10.9.2.1. Alternative right-of-ways and the rationale for the selection of the proposed rights-of-way is given in Section 10.9.
| |
| 3.9.2.2 Electrical Radiated electrical interference is insignificant beyond 1000 feet from the rights-of-way and no receptors are antici-pated within this range due to the land classification.
| |
| Radiated acoustic noise is insignificant on lines with volt-ages below 345 KV. The 500 KV lines will be designed to minimize acoustic noise.
| |
| Ground currents, in normal operation, both induced and con-ducted are insignificant. The magnitude of such currents depends on the magnitude and balance of the load current in the conductors. Procedures for grounding metal structures and 'equipment, along with other precautions used by BPA substantially eliminates the possible hazard and nuisance from these sources. Under phase to ground fault conditions the current can reach 23 KA in the immediate vicinity for a maximum of one half second until the line protection devices operate.
| |
| 3.9-2
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The magnitude of induced currents beneath the transmission lines can be estimated from BPA design criteria. One design criterion is that the electric field strength, as measured one meter above the ground, not exceed 9 kv/m .under typical maximum operating conditions. Zt is additionally specified that the field strength at the edge of the right-of-way not exceed 5 kv/m. Xn such a field, the short-circuit current under the lines could be 0.14 mA in a person and about 5 mA for a large trailer truck. No short- or long-term effects ~3) on humans in fields of this magnitude have been documented.
| |
| High voltage transmission lines exhibit corona discharge which is associated with the formation of ozone. Because corona discharge represents a power loss, transmission lines are designed to minimize this loss for economic reasons.
| |
| The ozone formation per'hree-phase mile of 500 KV trans-mission line would be approximately 0.9 lb/day, and will be considerably less for the 230 KV line. The effects of this ozone formation are difficult to evaluate since the natural formation rate is high in 'comparison. Over the rights-of-way the natural ozone generation is one or two orders of magnitude above that caused by corona discharge from trans-mission lines. Field measurements of ozone concentrations in the vicinity of transmission lines have failed to record any increases that were attributable to the power lines.
| |
| For these reasons, ozone formation is expected to cause no significant environmental effect.
| |
| 3.9-3 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE'.9-1 500 KV AND 230 KV LINE ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS 500 KV Ashe'an'foid''gl Transmission Line-Conductor type: ACSR CHUKAR Capacity/conductor': I at 50 C rise over 25 C ambient with sum = 1458 amps AC Resistance:
| |
| 0 Centigrade 25 50 75 80 100 ohms/mile .0560 .0609 .0659 .0670 .0709 230 KV Ashe HEW 53 Startu Line:
| |
| Conductor type: ACSR DRAKE Capacity/conductor: I at 50 C rise over 25 C ambient with sum = 906 amps AC Resistance:
| |
| 0 Centigrade 25 50 75 80 100 ohms/mile .1177 .1293 .1408 .1431 .1523
| |
| | |
| G.
| |
| Q.
| |
| BACK-UP 5ECOklDARY CP RUM5 TO 5WITCHCj EAR lQ QJ,CK.OP AUX REACTOR PWR TRAH5.
| |
| 0 TR-Ml yl TR.M'Z WWP-2 I
| |
| MOKV I I
| |
| TURB.GEhl BLDG TA M3 RADWAST'E NORMAL AOX.
| |
| TR-lA4 PWa (2) BLDG SM.I SM7 Z3OKV START UP PNR SM 2 Tg.g 5M-8 5TA,fg.UP 9ECOMDARY RUM5TO rWA START-VP AUX. PWR, TRAM5.
| |
| WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM 500 KV, 230 KV, 115 KV power Layout WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 Environmental Report FIG. 3~9
| |
| | |
| tvf M M
| |
| 02g go g
| |
| ftt 40
| |
| ~05 40 nmt-3 t-OV 54'~ l R 0 tTi 3,'C H H 0 0 H
| |
| Q 0 0 4) 6 6 Mon
| |
| 'EQ I/4h I Zi M Single Circuit Sinttlc Circuit Delta Configuration 500,000 volt Flat Confitturation 230,000 volt Ashe Sub to Hanford ttl Sub Athe Tap to HEW<3 loop fine
| |
| | |
| >0 YAKIMA pO
| |
| ~<0~
| |
| ~0 OgO II ~
| |
| DETAIL C DETAILS D ss si FFTF I g I
| |
| a I
| |
| @SHE g
| |
| -J 0 SUB ez y8
| |
| ~OO o,~
| |
| g9.. WNP-2 U.S. G V.
| |
| .300 AREA 8 SITE SUB.
| |
| ABOVE DRAWING NOT TO SCALE SCALE OF DETAILS BELOW ARE I "-200 DETAIL "C" DETAIL D DETAIL' PARALLEL TO 500 KV NEW R/W SECTION PARALLEL TO HEW 3 a/w HEW 230 KV r-H 5 OKV
| |
| ~
| |
| NEW R/W FFTF FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY R/W RIGHT OF WAY A-H ~
| |
| ASHE HANFORD I A-HEW 3. ~
| |
| ASHE TAP TO HEW 3
| |
| 'ENTON RICHLAND HEW HANFORD ENERGY WORKS M-8 ~
| |
| MIDWAY BENTON WWP . WASHINGTON WATER POWER WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM 230 KV RIGHT OF WAY DETAIL MAP (1)
| |
| WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 Environmental Report FIG. 3.9-3
| |
| | |
| FIGURE 3.9-4 BONNEVILE POWER ADMINISTRATION'S H. J. ASHE SUBSTATION
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATIONS PLANT AND TRANSMISSION FACXLITXES CONSTRUCTION 4.1 SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTXON Total construction activities associated with the WNP-2 pro-ject encompass approximately 353 acres of land entirely within the boundaries of WPPSS's leased property or the Han-ford Reservation. The following is an approximate breakdown of the construction acreage required by the WNP-2 project.
| |
| Construction Activit A roximate Acres On WPPSS's leased property (1)
| |
| Plant structures Makeup water pumphouse + parking lot 16 Makeup water and blowdown pipe lines 15 Access road to makeup water pumphouse 11 Cooling towers and spray ponds 25 Other (parking lots, temporary buildings, etc.) 131 TOTAL 202 On Hanford Reservation (off of WPPSS property)(2):
| |
| Ashe Substation + access road 51 500 KV line and access roads 63 230 KV line and access roads 37 TOTAL 151 Only a small percentage of the land area supporting the shrub-steppe vegetation types common to the Hanford Reserva-tion will be disturbed.
| |
| Figure 4.1-1 is the WNP-2 construction schedule showing key dates of construction activities concerning major structures and auxiliary facilities. Figure 4.1-2 is a combined actual and estimated schedule of the WNP-2 construction work force.
| |
| : 4. 1-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 4;1.1 Impacts on the Local Po ulation There is widespread public acceptance of nuclear installations within the communities surrounding the Reservation. Figure 2.1-9 shows the proximity of permanent population. These communities consist of a high percentage of people skilled in the engineering, construction, and operation of a wide variety of nuclear facilities. The construction of WNP-2 affects the local communities in a positive way by providing jobs for people living in the local communities (approximately 78.4%
| |
| of the construction work force is from the Tri-Cities region(3)) and the prevention of displacement of the construc-tion workers to other regions.
| |
| As shown in Figure 2.2-1 and Figure 3.1-1, the WNP-2 site is characterized by a sagebrush-bitterbrush vegetation and is designated as "unclassified." A letter(4) from the Benton County Office of the County Engineer states: "the use of that area, "WNP-2 site, "for the construction and operation of a nuclear generating project is consistent with zoning ordi-nances prepared by the Benton County Planning Commission."
| |
| The construction activities are far removed from inhabited areas, public roads, and from the FFTF site. There has been no measurable noise (except from the movement of trucks to and from the site) upon anyone other than the work force.
| |
| Therefore, with the exception of localized construction and the normal dust and traffic problems associated with any large construction activity, the ecology of the area surround-ing the site has not and is not expected to be significantly changed by construction. Upon completion of the work, a land-scaping program will be implemented for the purpose of im-proving the aesthetics and preventing erosion at the site.
| |
| Specific discussions on past, present and future construction impacts on local land and water uses is discussed in the following subsections.
| |
| 4.1.2 Construction Im acts on the Environment 4.1.2.1 Land Use 4.1.2.1.1 Past and Present Im 'acts In July 1970, a lightning originated fire effectively removed the greater portion of the pristine vegetation on the site, leaving only a sparse ground cover with little wildlife present. Due to the relatively barren condition of the land, the construction of the WNP-2 plant has had minimal effects on land usage. Environmental effects relating to water usage have also been considered during all phases of site prepara-tion and plant construction, and will be discussed in Section 4.1.2.2.
| |
| 4.1-2
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The construction site is in the early state of recovery from the fire and provides limited food and cover for resident wildlife. Construction activities, destroying the habitats of small mammals (o f which the pocket mouse is the dominant species), has not had any measurable effect on the transitory wildlife of the large shrubsteppe. The pocket mouse population near the construction site has been monitored for thge7) years as part of the monitoring program for WNP-1/4.
| |
| There has been virtually no change in the population during that time. It appears that the pocket mouse is impacted only if directly within the disturbed construction area.
| |
| The major disturbance and displacement of fauna in the area occured as a result of the fire. The more productive shrub-steppe and riparian habitats are remote from the site, and construction appears to have had little influence on the wildlife associated with these habitats.
| |
| Several temporary vegetation recovery study areas near WNP-2 are under investigation for grass and sagebrush regrowth.
| |
| (Nineteen thousand acres of its vegetative cover was burned in July 1970.) These study areas (two burned and three unburned plots) are located approximately within a mile of the site in west, south, and east quadrants (see Figure 6.1-2). Knowledge from these studies applies to construction impacts because the 1970 fire was extremely hot, destroying virtually all plant life and all seeds which would have normally germinated the next year. As with construction areas, revegetation of, these areas depends on new seeds blowing in from unburned areas. Information on these plots is contained in Section 6.1.4.3.
| |
| Following the range fire in 1970, the construction site had a sparse cover of annual vegetation in early successional stages, which has partially stabilized the soil and provides only a marginal habitat for resident wildlife. The exposed area is subjected to wind erosion and consequently blowing dust occurs frequently. Since the construction activities are not visible to the general public, they have no aesthetic impact with the possible exception of an incremental dust burden to the air.
| |
| Rainfall at the Hanford Reservation averages 6.25 inches per year. The surface soils are very permeable and minimal natural surface runoff occurs. Erosion control has been successfully accomplished by proper grading and terracing.
| |
| No known historical or archaeological sites are located within the WNP-2 site or the transmission corridors. During the construction period a competent archaeologist is employed and his expertise has been utilized during excavation activities.
| |
| Archaeological sites south of the WNP-2 lease area along the river bank were roped off to avoid disturbance. A discussion of findings is presented in Section 2.6.
| |
| : 4. 1-3 Amendment 3 January 1979
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Sanitary wastes have been and will continue to be disposed of through septic tanks and tile fields supplemented by temporary chemical toilets. The chemical toilets are serviced, when necessary, by an outside contractor. This is in com-pliance with State of Washington Department of Labor and In-dustries Safety Standards for Construction Work, WAC 296 055 Sanitary Facilities.
| |
| Separate wash facilities are housed in a heated building, and the waste water is disposed of through a drainage tile field. Waste flow from these facilities is estimated at 15-30 gallons per day per person. No adverse affects on the environment have been experienced.
| |
| Combustible construction scraps were initially burned in a burn pit approximately 1/4 mile east of the main plant but are currently being buried. Petroleum wastes have been accumulated in drums and disposed of off-site. Chemical wastes have been and will be accumulated in drums and returned to the manufacturer for disposal or otherwise disposed of in a manner determined to adequately protect the environment.
| |
| 4.1.2.1.2 Future Construction Effects Future work, off of WPPSS's property, includes the completion and erection of the transmission lines and their associated access roads. Section 4.2 describes their construction effects. Major construction still to be completed at the site includes those major items listed in Figure 4.1-1.
| |
| Future work at the WNP-2 site will continue to be controlled by the Construction Impact Control Program (see section 4.5).
| |
| 4.1.2.2 Water Use 4.1.2.2.1 Past and Present Impacts In accordance with the site certification agreement with the Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council (TPPSEC), con-struction activities involving work in the Columbia River was to be limited to the period from July 31 thru October 15, 1975. During those months the river level and velocity and migrant fish levels were low and construction impacts would be minimal. However, additional work to return the river bed to its natural contours required TPPSEC notifica-tion and rip rap repair in the vicinity of the intake "T"'s and the cooling tower blowdown line. This repair was performed during February 11 to March 15, 1976. To reduce possible biotic and water quality impacts during initial work and repair work, the small gravel used for pipeline bedding was screened and rip rap was placed by a clam shell. An'assessment of the construction effects, is given in Reference 6.1-7.
| |
| 4.1-4 Amendment 3 January 1979
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The water used during construction has been pumped from on-site wells at an average withdrawal rate of approximately 25 )3 gpm. This withdrawal rate has had no measurable effect on the ground-water profile, since ample recharge of the aauifer is available.
| |
| 4.1.2.2.2 Future Construction Effects There is no further construction or excavation scheduled to take place in the Columbia River. Well water withdrawal is not expected to exceed 10,000 gallons per day, and as experi-ence has shown, no adverse environmental effects are expected.
| |
| 4.1.3 Final Site Construction and Restoration Landscaping will serve both a functional and an aesthetic purpose. Suitable grasses and hedges will be planted to fa-cilitate erosion and dust control plus the added benefits of the aesthetic appeal. Landscaping will integrate excess ex-cavated materials (spoils) with the site contours to ensure runoff away from all buildings and auxiliary structures. In compliance with the WNP-2 security program, no landscaping is to be provided within an isolation area extending 20 feet on either side of the perimeter security line. Figures 3.1-2 and 3.1-5 are an artist's conception of the finished plant and makeup water pumphouse showing the landscaping and plant facilities.
| |
| 4.1-5 Amendment 3 January 1979
| |
| | |
| BURNS AND ROE. INC.
| |
| CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSSUIJMARY WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 Status as ol: December 23, 1977 1973 1974 1978 A 5 0*N "0 f*M 4 A 8 0 N 0 Weidtt Cone M A M J J 8 OND f M A M J J A S 0 N 0 J F M M J J A J F A M J J A 8 0 N D J F A M S 0 J F M A M J N D J J M J lsllllllIII I n
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| J I
| |
| IIIIIIIII I ~ IIIII ~ I I~
| |
| ~ IIIIILI
| |
| ~
| |
| I f
| |
| -204 Fiekl atxcreo Tanks .0011 100 100 ~ 1l Ill 2 205. 208. 221 224, 226. 230. 232 Complete AII5 I III 100 3
| |
| 3 206 Conelet Con>>nrct .1452 100 100 3A C5426 I250i Genrar ~ion I Inter imi .039S 100 100 38 -206A IZSII Genre. Onnscructionjfinsti .0063 54.8 62.6 '
| |
| 4 207 Structlxa'Sere .0029 50 8 50.8 5 209 Rx5>>9o'eac= ore>>ure Ve>>et .0027 100 100 6 ZiOA>>nneccva r~~~>>n .0151 61.2 68.6 7 213 Prknry CcNrJ ~ant Ve>>et JI180 09.8 I GO 70 7A 213A Contairune . Ve>>ei Retrofit .0192 18.6 15 2 8 214 Turtxne Grrro rm>ration 8'I.6 01.7 9 215 Meehan>>s~ Ec>>, install. d Pein9 .1159 100 100 SA f 215 it Mec .. Eo.lp. I rWI 4 Pisxn9
| |
| ~ .Zm a2 9.5 10 10 216 NVAC 5 O u rnttalratiOn .0315 39.7 43.8 11 217 Fire Prccse:4- Syrrn 7.0 6.9 12 218 Erectrrc twJ:at r .1728 39.3 43.6 12 13 219 Spec>>r Coat~pl .0036 42.4 46.0 13, 14 220 In>>rume" tr o I SUCet>>n .01 64 2.5 2.4 14 15 222 fk>>t See Wrx .0058 0.0 0.0 15 11 r I
| |
| ~
| |
| 16 223 Coo4n9 Tonrs .0153 100 100 16 11' I j 17 225Mskeopssa>> ou pr>>use .OO72 09.4 09.7 7 18 228 Commun>>at~ Systems .0015 1.0 5.4 18 I ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 19 Hf mists Pa'mtllf .0014 O,O 0,0 \
| |
| Srre i 20 231 Security 1 0019 OJI 00 I 233 Spray POiC o 21 20 21 .OO I 9 00 0.0 22 36 Product>>" d m rrrr ol Conc ete .006'I 08.0 08.0
| |
| 'I lp 23 74 Maintenance d V sc future .0087 68.0 SkO
| |
| >>I I I 10 tuat 8 9 24 Project Corrtingrcr .0420 0.0 OAI 8 7
| |
| TOTALS 1.00 56.1 583 II
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ IllIlls 8 4 5 25 Startup Support 550 000 Manhours . 53.8 55.9 lllI ~ 111 2 I OND 0 A 5 0 N D JFMAMJ Sto 0
| |
| ~
| |
| M A M J J 5 J F M J J A S N 0 J A M J J A N D J F A M S 0 F M A M N D J F A M J J A S 0 N D JjF M A M J J A 5 0 N 0 1973 1974 1976 1977 1978 1979 Contract Duradon ms II III >> S ScheduNd Work Complete in Place
| |
| ~ Actual Work Complete In Place
| |
| ~~~~ Schedul>>I Expenditures Arnendnent l May 1978 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO ~ 2-Environmental Report P.IG. 4.1-1
| |
| | |
| "~ ~
| |
| I'
| |
| ~
| |
| (
| |
| l I~
| |
| gt
| |
| '
| |
| C
| |
| | |
| 2000 Actual Estimated I
| |
| I I
| |
| 1500 I I
| |
| 1
| |
| \
| |
| G 1000 1
| |
| O C
| |
| 500 0O 8 0
| |
| 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 YEAR Amendment 1, Ma 1978 HASHIHGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM%
| |
| WNP-2 CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL~
| |
| N2PSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO 2 Environmental Report.
| |
| PIG- 4.1-2
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 4.2 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION The effects of clearing the rights-of-way and installing transmission towers and conductors, on the environs and the people living in the adjacent area, are discussed in this section.
| |
| Bonneville Power Administration is constructing the Howard J.
| |
| Ashe Substation and the WNP-2 500 KV transmission line and 230 KV start-up line entirely within the Hanford Reservation.
| |
| Access to the Hanford Reservation is partially restricted and any construction activities by BPA will not have an effect on the general public.
| |
| BPA has submitted an environmental statement~1~discussing the Howard J. Ashe Substation and the 500 KV and 230 KV lines.
| |
| The information for the following sections was taken from that document. Work on the 230 KV line took place from November 1975 to March 1976. Work on the 500 KV line is scheduled from January 1977 to January 1978. Work on the H. J. Ashe Substation was intiated during November 1975 with the substation to be energized in September 1976.
| |
| 4.2.1 Clearin the Ri hts-of-Wa and the Substation Site For construction purposes, sagebrush will be removed from the rights-of way only at the tower sites in an area of about 20 feet square for the 500 KV towers, 28 feet square for the 230 KV towers, and on main access roads. The total construction land requirements for the 500 KV and 230 KV lines amounts to approximately 100 acres. Sagebrush will be removed at tower sites to facilitate tower erection. Grass will be left grow-ing on all portions of the rights-of-way to the extent possi-ble. Construction of the substation will remove approximately 51 acres of sagebrush-bunchgrass/cheatgrass vegetation and associated wildlife habitat. The site is essentially level except for some local microrelief and only minimal grading will be required.
| |
| 4.2.1.2 ~Im acts A description of the standard mitigation measures that will be used during construction operations to mitigate impacts to the natural, cultural, and socioeconomic resources can be found in the BPA General Construction and Maintenance Program statement ~2~. In addition to the General Construction and Maintenance Program statement, the publication entitled, "Environmental Criteria for Electric Transmission Systems" jointly published by the Departments of Agriculture and In-terior, summarizes the measures that will be used to lessen visual impacts of transmission lines.
| |
| : 4. 2-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Where required, clearing will be by bulldozer; no spraying will be used to clear the rights-of ways. Section 4.2.4.3 discusses the effects of construction on identified endangered species, and Section 4.1 gives an estimate of land require-ments during construction.
| |
| The corridors do not cross any streams or come near the.
| |
| Columbia River and the substation will be located approxi-mately 3000 feet north of WNP-2 and 3 miles east of the Columbia River. Therefore, no environmental impacts on the river or streams will occur.
| |
| Clearing the transmission routes and the substation site will not create noise noticeable to the general public.
| |
| Erosion is discussed in Subsection 4.2.4.
| |
| 4.2.2 Method for Erectin Transmission Line Structures L
| |
| Construction of transmission lines involves establishment of temporary construction access roads for movement of materials and heavy erection machinery to construction areas; clearing vegetation, structures, and other obstructions on the rights-of-way that might, interfere with construction of the trans-mission lines; burning or otherwise disposing of cleared veg-etation; leveling areas necessary for tower sites and tower steel storage and staging areas; excavating for and install-ing tower footings; erecting transmission towers; stringing and tensioning conductors; construction of permanent main-tenance access roads on and off the rights-of-way as dictated by terrain and other factors; and reseeding or otherwise re-vegetating disturbed soil areas where appropriate.
| |
| 4.2.3 Access and Service Roads A total of 16.4 miles of new access and service roads will be constructed. Ten and one-half miles of access roads will be on the rights-of-way, 5.5 miles will be off the rights-of-way, and 0.4 miles will be for the substation.
| |
| With the total length of the corridors being 20.9 miles, the remainder of the access roads will be comprised of existing access roads from other transmission lines and service roads from existing telephone lines. For example, through the sand dunes area, approximately 3 miles of an existing grav-elled telephone access road will be utilized. Short spur roads to the individual tower sites will be necessary.
| |
| 4.2.4 Environmental Effects 4.2.4.1 Erosion Wind erosion potential of the sandy loam soil in this dry 4.2-2
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER climate is extremely high. When vegetative cover is removed and soil is disturbed during construction and clearing of access roads and tower sites, wind erosion can be severe.
| |
| In most areas, the fall germination of cheatgrass will re-stabilize the area in a few years. Blowouts, dunes, and other wind produced features found widely scattered across the area, however, attest to the chronic erosion potential in the absence of control measures.
| |
| The lines cross 3 miles of sand dunes. Some sand dunes are not stable due to lack of vegetation cover and construction will impact on these as well's on stabilized dunes with a high potential for additional erosion. Sand dunes are up to 30 feet high and capable of moving eastward at a rate of up to 1 foot per year. ~
| |
| In order to minimize wind erosion caused by construction as many existing roads as possible will be used and gravel will be used to cover the principal new access roads.
| |
| spur roads will If possible, not be graded. Existing roads that are well gravelled seem to be very stable with It little wind erosion.
| |
| has also been found that in a disturbed area such as tern-porary access roads, grass will establish itself within 1 to 2 years and again be capable of minimizing wind erosion.
| |
| 4.2.4.2 Loss of Agricultural Productivity The Hanford Reservation is owned and controlled by the Energy Research and Development Administration. The 500 KV and 230 KV transmission lines will be entirely within the boundaries of the Reservation. Most of the land (excepting Gable Mountain) is a shrub steppe with no other productive (agricultural and other) uses planned by ERDA. Therefore construction activities will have no foreseeable affect on agricultural productivity.
| |
| 4.2-3 Amendment 3 January 1979
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 4.2.4s3 Pish and Wildlife and Endan ered S ecies Adverse effects upon resident wildlife including the sage grouse will be largely limited to the construction period.
| |
| The routes do not cross any streams, therefore, aquatic life will not be affected.
| |
| Due to clearing of sagebrush from main access roads and tower sites, song birds, birds of prey, and upland birds within the vicinity will be temporarily disturbed and some habitat will be lost.
| |
| Sage grouse, although few in number, have been able to sur-vive on the reservation due to the presence of exclusion areas and the lack of hunting.
| |
| The Bald Eagle is the only threathened animal species (Pederal designation) to occur in the WNP-2 Site Area. The population on the Hanford DOE Site has increased over the years from five (5) birds in the 1960's to over 15 birds in the late 1970's. Eagles generally arrive during mid-November with a peak abundance occuring in late November through early February and begin to depart in mid-February. They do not nest in the area. There are no other Federally designated threatened or endangered animals or plants living in the WNP-2 Site area. The following threatened wildlife species may at times appear along the corridors although their exact ranges are not known.
| |
| ~Secies Federal Status Bald Eagle Threatened S>>'merican peregrine falcon Endangered 4.2.4.4 The transmission routes do not cross any streams or rivers and the water .table of the Hanford Reservation is well below ground level, therefore, construction activities will have no affect on the local water quality.
| |
| 4.2.4.5 Noise Due to the isolation of the transmission routes and the sub-station, construction will create no noise impacts upon the general public.
| |
| 4.2.4.6 Historical and Archeological Sites Neither the lines nor the substation is near any historical or archeological sites.
| |
| 4.2-4 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 4.3 RESOURCES COMMITTED
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| The portion of the Hanford Reservation affected by WNP-2 con-sists of land mostly covered with sagebrush and desert grasses.
| |
| This land is not currently being used for any productive pur-pose. In general, the land has no agricultural value without irrigation.
| |
| Approximately 30 of the 1,089 acres originally leased by WPPSS for WNP-2 will be utilized for plant operation.. An addition-al 80 acres on the Reservation will be used as tower sites for power transmission lines, access roads and for a sub-station's land requirements.
| |
| Except for concrete (which would be considered lost for any-thing but sanitary landfill or similar use), much of the un-contaminated materials used for WNP-2 could be salvaged after decommissioning the unit. However, the cost. of retrieving these materials would in some instances, far exceed the pur-chase price of new materials. Some components of the facility will have become radioactive through activation and/or con-tamination and thus, will essentially be irretrievably lost.
| |
| Upon the inevitable decommissioning of WNP-2, the area (app-roximately 3.5 acres) occupied by the reactor facilities may be placed on permanent restricted use because of the residual concentrations of radioactivity that would result from oper-ating the plant.
| |
| Air and water are resources which, during the construction of this project, will also be affected, but consumption will be minimal. Small quantities of liquid and gaseous effluents will be dispersed into, and diluted by, these two natural re-sources. Neither of these forms of effluents will render the the air and water unsuitable for additional-use by man. In addition, capital resources were committed prior to and dur-ing construction. This resource should be totally recovered assuming the facility is operated throughout its planned life-time. 'ome additional disturbance of the site has been nec-essary to accommodate materials, construction equipment, and temporary buildings during construction. This has been kept to a minimum consistent with appropriate safety, reliability, and environmental criteria. These disturbances do not re-present an irreversible commitment of resources since the temporarily disturbed area will revert to its natural veg-etative state within several years when these facilities are removed. The characteristics of the land for the site are representative of much of the adjacent underdeveloped land which is covered with sagebrush, bitterbrush, other alien weeds, and desert grasses. The land is not considered un-usual, and in all probability would otherwise be undeveloped for many years. Thus, the use of this site involves no area of limited supply or unique potential. Construction of WNP-2
| |
| : 4. 3-1
| |
| | |
| is having no significant impact on wildlife.
| |
| =Native forms of wildlife, which may once nave been present in this small area,,have not been destroyed; rather they have been displaced to the vast expanse's of the Hanford Res-ervation, much of which has remained essentially in itsnum-na-tural condition. Thus no net reduction in either
| |
| ,
| |
| the bers or diversity of wildlife species has resulted from the construction of WNP-2.
| |
| 4.3-2
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 4.4 RADIOACTIVITY The scheduled fuel load for WNP-2 is March 1980. WNP-1 and WNP-4 are scheduled for fuel loading during June 1982 and December 1983, respectively. DOE's Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF), located approximately three miles from WNP-2 in a southwesterly direction, is scheduled for fuel load in June 1979. It has been estimated that operation of this facility will contqjQute a dose of about 10-3 mrem per year. to individuals at WNP-2. 'ased on the projected construction force for
| |
| ~
| |
| the last year of construction, the total dose to site personnel would be on the order of 0.5:( 10 3 man-rem per year.
| |
| No past or future adverse effects of radioactivity from other nuclear power plants has, or is anticipated to affect the WNP-2 construction workers.
| |
| : 4. 4-1 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER
| |
| : 4. 5 "
| |
| CONSTRUCTION IMPACT CONTROL PROGRAM
| |
| : 4. 5. 1 Controls WNP-2 is located in a shrub steppe region, consisting of several shallow rolling hills, with the eastern extremity having a general slope to the river. Surface drainage is good due to the open and dry nature of the area (average rainfall is 6.25 inches per year) and sandy soil types.
| |
| During construction, contractors are required to maintain proper drainage and erosion control around the construction areas and especially in areas of excavation or trols are being employed to insure proper fill.
| |
| embankment Con-slopes.
| |
| These slopes were further recommended not to be yp steeper than one vertical on one and one half horizontal Borrow pits are 'prepared by grading to minimize wind and water erosion and to conform, where possible, to the natural topography. Any accumulation of precipitation within the excavation area are allowed to infiltrate into the permeable soils ~
| |
| Site roadways are watered by sprinkler trucks as necessary to decrease the impact of windblown soil. Because of the remote location, there are no off-site impacts from dust and noise.
| |
| Combustible construction scraps are buried on site. Petroleum wastes are accumulated in drums and disposed off-site.
| |
| Salvageable non-combustible materials (scrap metal, etc.)
| |
| are accumulated and removed periodically from the site for recycling.
| |
| Sanitary wastes are disposed of through septic tanks and tile fields supplemented by temporary chemical toilets. The chemical toilet.s are serviced, when necessary, by outside contractors.
| |
| Landscaping and final site construction will serve to both control dust and improve the site aesthetics. Landscaping will integrate excess excavated material (spoils) with the site contours to ensure runoff away from all buildings and auxiliary structures.
| |
| 4.5.2 'ature of Control Implementation Control of the environmental quality protection requirements are implemented and maintained via two main methods:
| |
| 4.5-1 Amendment 3 January 1979
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER
| |
| : a. written direction to contractors through, specifications and correspondence; and
| |
| : b. routine inspection of the site by a con-struction management representative.
| |
| Construction activity impacts are, controlled by the Site Certification Agreement between the State of Washington and WPPSS, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction Permit, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Construction Permit (No. EPPR-93), the Department of Energy, and the State Environmental Policy Act. The requirements of these legal entities and documents are implemented by the Supply System through auditable contractual agreements between WPPSS and contractors. Construction management personnel inspect construction activities to ensure contract adherence, and the Supply System in turn audits the construction activities through periodic on-site inspection.
| |
| : 4. 5-2 Amendment 3 January 1979
| |
| | |
| MNP-2 ER CHAPTER 5 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PLANT OPERATION 5.1 EFFECTS OF OPERATION OF HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM 5.1.1 Effluent Limitations and Mater gualit Standards The Water guality Standards of the State of Washington'(1) classify the Col-umbia River from its mouth to Grand Coulee Dam (River Nile 595) as "Class A Excellent". Different water temperature standards are formulated for various reaches of the river. Since the WNP-2 plant is not expected to affect the water temperature of the Columbia River downstream of the Washington-Oregon border (River Mile 309), only the standards applicable for the reach from that point to Priest Rapids Dam (River Mile 397) are described here.
| |
| The standards specify that water temperatures, outside a specified mixing zone, shall not exceed 20oC (68oF) due in part to measurable (0.3oC) increases resulting from human activities and that temperature increases from human activities at any time shall not exceed t = 34/(T+9), where t is the permissible increase and T is the water temperature in oC due to all causes combined.
| |
| Applicable guideline of 40 CFR Part 432.25(2) state that there shall be no discharge of heat from the main condensers; however, heat may be discharged in blowdown from recirculated cooling water systems or cooling ponds. This is allowed if the temperature of the blowdown water does not exceed the lowest temperature of the recirculated cooling water prior to the addition of the makeup water.
| |
| Discharges from WNP-2 to the river are controlled by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Permit (No. MA-002515-1) issued by the State of Washington in compliance with Chapter 155, Laws of 1973 (RCM 90.48) as amended and the Federal Mater Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 (PL 92-500). The above incorporates by reference State of Washington Mater guality Criteria contained in Washington Administrative Code 173-201.
| |
| The mixing zone specified extends from 50 ft upstream to 300 ft downstream of the discharge with lateral boundaries separated by 100 ft. Vertically the mixing zone extends from the surface to the river bottom. The discharge from MNP-1/4, located approximately 650 feet upstream, has a mixing zone of the same dimensions.
| |
| 5.1.2 Ph sical Effects 5.1.2.1 Summar S stem Descri tion The heat dissipation system is discussed in detail in Section 3.4 and the thermal/flow characteristics of the blowdown and receiving stream are pre-sented in Figure 3.4-4. Only a few of the operating parameters which deter-mine the environmental effects of operation will be suomarized in this section.
| |
| 5.1-1 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The waste heat generated by WNP-2 will be dissipated to the environment by two paths: 1) heat transfer to air through the use of mechanical draft wet cool-ing towers and 2) cooling tower blowdown discharged to the Columbia River.
| |
| The components of the cooling system which might have some effect on the environment are: 1) the intake structure, 2) the bl owdown water discharge system, and 3) the cooling tower vapor plume. The environmental effects of these are discussed in the following subsections. Figure 2.4-6 depicts the 4 location of intake and discharge lines.
| |
| 5.1.2.2 Intake Effects The intake for the makeup water of the cooling system of WNP-2 will consist of two 42 in. diameter perforated pipes placed parellel to the river flow above the river bottom. The top of the pipes will be submerged below the water sur-face for the lowest regulated flow of 36,000 cfs. The maximum pumping rate will be 25,000 gpm (55.6 cfs) which is about Oe15'4 of the lowest regulated flow and 0.05/ of the average river flow (120,000 cfs). The average makeup 4 water requirement will be about 15,500 gpm (34.4 cfs).
| |
| Detailed hydraulic moPef studies of the intake structure were done by Lasalle Hydraulic Laboratory.(3) These studies concluded that the perforated pipe inlet with an internal sleeve would give uniform flow distribution and would offer maximum protection to small fish during all operating conditions. At the maximum withdrawal rate of 12,500 gpm at each intake, the maximum inlet velocity at the external screen surface will be approximately 0.5 fps, but at a distance of one (1) inch from the outer screen surface the velocity will be approximately 0.1 fps. It is noted that intake velocities will generally be below these values since the normal withdrawal rate will be approximately 7,730 gpm at each intake. Undesirable debris is not expected to pass through the outer perforations with these low velocities. A backwash system will permit low-velocity flow reversal. Riprap protection of the river bed has been provided to prevent scour around the intake. A buoy has been placed outboard of the intake to war n boaters and prevent damage to the boats and the intake structure. A previous evaluation of alternate intake systems concluded that perforated pipes placed above the river channel bed would provide the best alternative water i ntake system for a nuclear power plant on the central Columbia River considering potential enviroqmental impacts and costs for construction, operation, and maintenance.(4i 5.1.2.3 Blowdown Dischar e Effects The blowdown discharge pipe is buried in the river bottom and has a 8 x 32 in diffuser outlet discharging perpendicular to the river flow direction and at an upward angle of 15o from the horizontal. The exit flow velocity. will be 4 approximately 8.5 fps at the maximum blowdown rate of 6500 gpm and 3.5 fps at the average blowdown rate of '2585 gpm. Riprap has been placed around the discharge to prevent riverbed erosion.
| |
| 5.1-2 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER River velocities were measured during 1972 near the location of the WNP-2 outfall. Surface velocities varied between 2.5 and 3.3 fps for river flows varying from 36,000 to 50,000 cfs. A river velocity transect was also made during Mar ch 1974, in which current meter measurements were made at three depths for'our cross-river locations. Sased on the Ringold gauging station, river flow during the survey was estimated at 130,000 cfs. Measurements in the vicinity of the proposed discharge for WNP-1 and WNP-4 indicated the river velocity to be about 4.2 fps and to be near constant with depth. Measurements made in Oecember 1979 at the WNP-2 diyc arge location showed velocities of about 5 fps at a flow of 135,000 cfs.<5 Mathematical predictions of the blowdown plume dispersion were conducted for a combination of cqn4itions which are considered representative of a "worst case" situation.(<) The river flow was taken as 36,000 cfs, the minimum regulated flow. While this flow may be attained for short durations at Priest Rapids Oam, it will rarely, if ever occur, at the discharge site 45 miles downstream. Oepth and velocity at the discharge are 4 feet and 2.5 fps, re-spectively. The ambient river temperature was assumed to be 20oC (68oF),
| |
| the baseline maximum specified by water quality standards. Maximum blowdown, 6500 gpm, was assumed with a temperature of 28.8oC (82oF). This temp-erature corresponds to a wet bulb of 21. loC (70oF). Historically, wet bulbs greater than 70oF have an annual frequency of occurrence of about 0.05K although such events occurred with a much greater frequency in 1975 (see Section 2.3.3).
| |
| To consider the additive effects of the future bl owdown from WNP-1/4 it was assumed that these units were discharging at the maximum combined rate of 15,500 gpm. The point of discharge is about 650 feet upstream from the WNP-2 outfall. It was also assumed that the WNP-1/4 plume center line was carried directly over the WNP-2 discharge. A description of the thermal plume model and its assumptions is given in Subsection 6.1.1.1. Calculations are based on an eddy diffusivity of 4 ft2/sec which was derivyd from a review of data from a dye dispersion study at the outfall site.'l6)
| |
| Results of the mathematical simulations are shown in Figures 5.1-1 to 5.1-3.
| |
| Under the assumed critical conditions, the temperature increase 300 feet down-stream of the WNP-2 discharge is estimated to be 0.1oC (0.2oF) in the absence of a discharge from WNP-1 and WNP-4. Within 15 feet the temperature excess is 0.6oC (loF). With the concurrent maximum discharge from WNP-1/4, the temperature increase at the end of the WNP-2 mixing zone is estimated to be 0.3oC (0.5oF), the limit specified by the water quality standards. The loF temperature excess is attained about 30 feet from the discharge. As shown in Figure 5.1-3, temperature increases of more than 0.3 C (0.5oF) are confined to a distance of about 20 feet on either side of the plume centerline.
| |
| The above predictions are for a combination of extreme conditions most likely'o occur in late summer. Seasonal variation of meteorological and hydro-logical conditions will result in greater initial temperature excesses (blow-down temperature minus river temperature) at other times of the year (see 5.1-3 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Figure 3.4-4). These higher initial temperature differentials would, however, be offset by the greater plume dilution associated with the higher river flow.
| |
| Generally, at distances beyond the point of complete vertical mixing, the predicted excess temperature at a point downstream will vary directly with initial excess temperature and discharge flow and inversely with river depth and square root of river velocity.
| |
| Absolute river temperatures downstream from the discharge would be less than for the critical conditi on which was modeled. The maximum combined thermal load from WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 is expected to be less than 75,000 Btu/sec. This heat load would raise bulk river temper ature less than 0.033oF at minimum river flow and by about 0.01oF under average flow conditions.
| |
| 5.1.3 Biolo ical Effects 5.1.3.1 Effects of'ntake Structure lt The effects of the intake structure upon aquatic biotic populations are expected to be insignificant. Only those small fish that cannot escape the approximate maximum intake velocity of 0.5 fps at the 3/8-in intake screen openings will probably be impinged and lost. Essentially all of the drifting biota occurring in the water column (phyto- and zooplankton, drifting insects, 4 ) fish fry or larvae) which are drawn into the intake structure will be killed.
| |
| This loss, however, will be so slight in comparison to the total populations of these organisms in the river water passing the site that the loss will not 4 ) significantly affect the ecosystem. As noted in Subsection 5.1.2.2, the max-imum water withdrawal will be less than Oe15X of the river volume at the low-est -regulated flow of 36,000 cfs.
| |
| Sports and commercial fish species which may be affected are the whitefish
| |
| (~Prose ium williamsoni), steelhead trout (Salmo ~airdneri), and saimon rr s tsng arvae may encounter the intake structure. Juvenile salmonids emerging from the gravel upstream from the intake structure may also be vulnerable to impingement; again, however, the fact that such a small volume is impacted 'renders the total impact minimal. The fact that most young salmon pass through the area of the intake structure during the spring runoff when flows are high further decreases their susceptibility to impingement.
| |
| The WNP-2 intake structure was inspected for fish impingement in December 1978 and May through December $ 979. No fish were observed on the intake screens during the inspections.(51 Also, a fish entrainment study was conducted on the WNP-2 intake system in May 1979 through May 19(0 Analysis of 69 entrain-ment samples revealed no fish eggs or, fish larvae.(53 During these tests the makeup water pumps were operated in a manner that approximated actual plant operating conditions.
| |
| 5.1.3.2 General Effects of Thermal Effluents Thermal effects of the WNP-2 blowdown discharge are expected to be negligible from either a thermal increase effect or from "cold shock". Thermal effects
| |
| : 5. 1-4 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| NP-2 ER involve two factors: 1) the change in water temperature above or below ambient and 2) the duration of exposure of the organisms to the change in temperature. Because of its direct and/or indirect effects, temperature is a pr incipal factor determin'ing the suitability of a habitat for aquatic organ-isms. The introduction of heated water into an aquatic ecosystem will cause some biological changes with effects on metabolism, develppmeqt, growth and reproduction, and mortality documented in the literature.'l~igl The tolerance of organisms to any thermal increment is species specific, depending on the magnitude of the thermal increment and the duration of the exposure, as well as previous temperature acclimation.
| |
| 5.1.3.3 Thermal Effects on Peri hyton Periphyton communities in the Hanford reach of the river are typically at a subclimax level of growth, with turbulent riverflow and seasonally llaw pater temperatures being factors limiting the biomass in the main channel.<10'n both the periphyton and phytoplankton populations, diatoms are the dominant forms. The dischar ge of heated water may cause an increase in the growth of periphyton in the iomediate vicinity of the outfall in an area within the 2.5oF isotherm, but such an effect is expected to be small and negated by loss fppm turbulent river flow. In Columbia River studies by Coutant and Owens,(~1) thermal increments of 18oF increased the standing crop of peri-phyton only during a short pyriqd in winter, with the domination by diatom spec'ies persisting. Patrick~12) reported that water temperatures less than 50 to 59oF limited the growth and reproduction of phytoplankton populations dominated by diatom forms, while higher temperatures increased the biomass until the temperature of the water reached 84.2 to 86oF. Temper atures ex-ceeding 86 to 93.2oF caused a measurable decrease in the number of species and population size as compared to that between 64.4 to 72.2oF.
| |
| 5.1.3.4 Thermal Fffects on Benthos The upper temperature limits for the majority of benthic organisms reported to occur in the Hanford reach of the river (see Subsection 2.2.2.5) appear to be in the range of 85 to 92oF, with tolerance dependent somewhat on the species, stage of development, and acclimation 'temperature.<9) Curry(15) found the upper thermal tolerance of several families of aquatic dipterans to be temperatures between 86 and 91.4oF. Caddisfly larvae, and stonefly and mayfly nymphs acclimated to 50oF had a 96-hour median tolerance to temp-eratures ragging fromm 70 to 87oF, with mayflies being the most sensitive species.(><) Becker<17~ reported that caddisfly larvae acclimated to a river temperature of 67.1oF had a 50K mortality (L050) after a 68-hour exposure to an 18oF increment, whereas, mortality to temperatures 13.5oF above ambient were insignificant. Thermal increase up to a temperature differential of.18oF resulted'n wejl-gefinedincreases in growth for all of the species tested,(17> and Coutant<18> has reported a 2-week earlier, emergence in heated zones as compared to ambient temperatures in the Columbia River.
| |
| 5.1-5 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 5.1.3.5 Thermal Effects on Pl ankton Although prolonged exposures to elevated temperatures have been reported to affect the growth rate and species composition of phytoplankton and zoo-plankton in the area of thermal discharges, the time interval in which plankton will be entrained in the thermal plume is considered too brief to af cause significant changes. During low flow and with a 24oF temperature differential at the point of blowdown, the time intervals in which organisms would be exposed to temperatures greater than 2.5oF above ambient in the 4 WNP-1/4 plume and WNP-2 plume would be approximately 12 and 4 seconds, respectively. These exposures are below those reported to have measurable eff ects (9,12,19)
| |
| The ecological consequences of thermal discharges on planktonic and benthic organisms are expected to be negligib)e, with lethal effects, if realized, being restricted to sessile benthic organims in an area qf the initial mixing (within 15 ft of the outfall), and any sublethal effects~18s20) to the smal'l at ea within the 2.5oF isotherm. Such 'changes would have no measurable effect on the abundance and composition of food organisms in the stream drift, and no impact on the fish resourc'es.
| |
| 5.1.3.6 Thermal Effects on Fishes Temperature, through both direct and indirect action, is one of the important parameters influencing the fishery resources in the Columbia River. The anadromous fish, particularly the salmonids, are the fish with the greatest sport and comnercial value. A review of the tolerance and thermal require-ments of fish indicates that, in the Hanford reach of the river, salmonids are the ygeqies most sensitive to and directly affected by thermal dis-charges. L ~l J The Hanford reach of the Columbia River is used extensively as a spawning and rearing area by chinook salmon and steelhead trout, as well as a major migration route for other adult and juvenile salmonids. A description of the salmon activities in the Hanford reach of the river is shown in Table 5.1-1.
| |
| Steelheads are essentially present throughout all periods of the year, with spawning activity commencing from late March to June.'122> The optimum temperatures most conducive to salmonid activities have been reported as: 45 to 60oF for migration, 45 to 55oF for spawning areas, and 50 to 60oF for rearing areas.<>>) The ambient water temperatures in the Hanford reach are typically below the preferred levels in March and April during the initial emergence of chinook fry, while temperatures during May and June are within those levels reported optimum and the preferred temperature of juvenile salmonids. The most critical period is during the months of July through September, when temperatures rise into the upper zone of salmonid thermal a(
| |
| tol er ance.
| |
| The thermal plume from the discharge of coojing tower blowdown does not intersect with any reported spawning areas.<23> The nearest potential salmonid spawning areas are approximately 3/4 mile downstream and 1000 ft east 5.1-6 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER of the plume centerline and the thermal increment in the river after. mixing is expected to have no measurable effect on spawning or on the growth and development of egg and larval stages in these areas. In a study on the effects of temperature 'on varying developmental stages of salmon eggs and fry, no adverse effects were noted when the thermal increments were less than 2.9oF and only a slight increase in mortality was noted when temperatures averaged 4.9oF above a 5-year mgan ambient water temperature in the Hanford reach of the Columbia River.(24~ If minimum flow were to occur during the spring spawning period concurrently with the maximum initial temperature excess of 24oF, a differential of 1.2oF would occur approximately 100 ft downstream of the outfall in an area where no spawning or rearing would be anticipated because of water turbulence and cobble substrate. The thermal increment at the nearest potential chinook and steelhead redds, as well as in areas within approximately 200 ft of the western shoreline, will be less than 0.05oF.
| |
| During movement in the main channel, juvenile salmonids could be involuntarily carried through the effluent plume, with their downstream velocity assumed to be essentially that of the riverflow, e.g., 2.5 to approximately 5 fps, during minimum and average flow rates. Figure 5.1-9 summarizes the average monthly thermal increment at the point of discharge and after initial mixing with respect to ambient river tempyraturqs and the thermal requirements and tol-erance of juvenile salmonids.~19i25~ During May through September the temperatures of the receiving water will be above the upper incipient lethal temperature (69.8oF) at the point of discharge. However, even under worst-case conditions (periods of low flow, an ambient river temperature of 68oF, an effuent temperature of 82oF, and simultaneous discharges from WNP-1 and WNP-4), temperatures in the receiving water would be below the upper incipient lethal temperature after a time interval of a very few seconds..
| |
| The preferred temperatures for juvenile salmonids are reported as 41 to 62.6oF.(22) Temperatures above 68oF are considered to be adverse for juvenile salmonids,(19) and 69.8oF is the upper incipient lethal temper-ature(25) (i.e., that temperature which will kill a stated fraction of the population when brought rapidly to it from a lower temperature, within an indefinite prolonged exposure). Brett reported that juvenile salmonids (five species of the genus Oncorhynchus), when acclimated to temperatures of 41 to 75.2oF, had a preferred temper ature range of 53.6 to 57.2oF and avowed($
| |
| temperatures above 59oF except under conditions of feeding stimuli.~2 i In the same study, the ultimate incipient lethal temperature was 74.8 to 77.2oF with juvenile chinook and coho exhibiting the greater thermal resis-tance. Figure 5.1-10 shows the geometric meantime for loss of equilibrium and death when juvenile chinogk pre exposed to temperatures above the ultimate incipient lethal temperature.(26~ A minimum of 5.4oF below the ultimate incipient temperature has been recormended as the maximum allowable for juvenile salmonids "to avoid significicant curtailment of activity," pith temperatures near 62.6oF considered the upper optimum temperature.<19~
| |
| Mean survival time curves, based on a revi ew of experimental data on the thermal tolerance of juvenile salmonid to variable temperature as a function of exposure duration and acclimation, have been sunmarized in a 1971 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER report.(19) Snyder and Blahm(27) reported that juvenile chinook salmon acclimated at 55oF exhibited no mortality within a 72-hour observation period after being suddenly exposed to a temperature of 70oF for 1 hour, while fish exposed to 80oF exhibited the first mortality after 100 sec of exposure. Juvenile chum salmon acclimated at higher temperatures (60oF) had no mortality when subjected to temperatures of 75oF; at a temperature of 80oF the first mortality was observed after a 44-min duration.
| |
| The recent study by Bush, Welch, and Mar(28) presents data relating pre-ferred and suboptimal temperatures to the expected effects of increasing water temperatures upon Columbia River fishes. These data indicate that temperatures of 24oC (75;2oF), if present continuously, would erradicate the salmon species in the Columbia River and that temperatures of 32oC (89.6oF) would eliminate the remaining salmonids.
| |
| Although the temperature increments in the plume at the determined exposures are less than those reported to cause direct lethal effects, indirect effects have been reported tq occur at sublethal thermal doses. In preliminary studies by Schneider(29~ juvenile rainbow trout acclimated at 59oF were exposed to temperatures ranging from 68.8 to 86oF to determine the effect of sublethal thermal exposures on the vulnerability of juvenile to predation.
| |
| Exposure to an elevated temperature of 69.8oF had no effect on the suscep-tibility of juveniles to predation. At temperatures of 71.6 to 73.4oF an exposure duration of 12 min was required to increase the vulnerability of juveniles above the control, while exposures for 2.5 to 4 min were required when temperatures were 80.6 to 82.4oF. In another study, the thermal dose (temperature and exposure duration) that first initiated differential preda-tion was abogt $ 0 to llew of that reported for the median dose for loss of equilibrium.<30) There was no evidence of an enhanced incidence or infec-tion of C. columnaris disease in fish in areas below the thermal discharges from the early sanford reactors as compared to areas not influenced by the thermal plumes.<30>
| |
| During periods of migration, adult anadromous fish would be expected to avoid the thermal plume and the potentially lethal temperatures associated with the areas of initial mixing. Ambient water temperatures whic) exceed 70oF are reported to impede or block adult salmonid migration.(19> During the periods of peak adult salmonid migration, the maximum cross sectional area of the river which would experience thermal increases greater than 1oF, and would be expected to evoke an avoidance response, is less than 3X of the main channel during worst-case conditions, and assures free passage of adult mi grants. Temperatures between 50 and 70oF were reported to cause no avoidance or blockage of migration near the confluence of the Snake and Columbia Rivers, whereas when the ambient temperatures exceeded 70oF, mi gration preference was in the lowest temperature zone.(19~27> In a study on the Hanford reach of the river, adult salmonid demonstrated a general preference for migration along the eastern shoreline (across )he river from WHP-2 outfall) from Priest Rapids Dam downstream to Richland.(30) The study also indicated that the thermal discharges from the early Hanford reactors had no si gnif i cant eff ects on mi grati on.
| |
| 5.1-8 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| MNP-2 ER From the above discussion; it is evident that temperatures considered to have lethal or sublethal effects on Columbia River fish will occur only very briefly in time and space in the area downstream from the MNP-2 discharge.
| |
| From predictions of the near-field temperatures and incremental additions to the bulk river temperature (including the MNP-1/4 discharge), it is concluded that thermal effects upon the Columbia River ecosystem will be insignificant.
| |
| "Cold shock" is an additional concern at scme nuclear power stations utilizing natural bodies of water as cooling sources. Cold shock problems stem from the sudden cessation of thermal discharge upon plant shutdown, since the thermal plume issuing from power plants acts as an attractant to aquatic organisms, particularly fishes. These organisms reside in the artificially heated waters for long periods, becoming acclimated to the elevated temperatures and, in fact, dependent on them for survival. Fish mortalities have occurred at a few plants following shutdowns and much effort has recently gone into devising ways to eliminate these fish kills. Cold shock is never expected to occur at MNP-2 because of its location on a swiftly flowing reach of the Columbia River. For fish to become acclimated to the warmer temperatures of the plume they would have to occupy these waters for several days, which is not expected to happen in the strong river currents. Fish populations downstream from the mixing zone, i.e., where the river has become thermally homogeneous, will experience temperatures that are essentially natural.
| |
| The only other aquatic community that might have a continuous exposure to the effluent and thus become acclimated to the higher temperatures is the benthic community. However, any impact on this population from cold shock would be minimal in terms of the, aquatic community in the vicinity of the site since the potentially affected area is so small.
| |
| 5.1.4 Effects of Heat Dissi ation Facilities 5.1.4.1 Ph si cal Descri ti on of Coolin Tower Plumes The operation of mechanical draft evaporative cooling towers at the MNP-2 site will produce visible plumes of liquid water droplets under certain atmospheric conditions. These plumes will extend from the cooling towers to varying distances di ctated by prevail i ng meteorol ogi cal conditions.
| |
| : 5. 1-9 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER PAGE DELETED 5.1-10 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER PAGE DELETED 5.1-11 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The models and assumptions used in assessment of the impact of cooling tower plumes are outlines in Subsection 6.1.3.2 and are presented in detail in Reference 31. These models and assumptions are conservative and overestimate the poten-tial impacts discussed below.
| |
| Len th of Elevated Plumes. Table 5.1-2 contains summaries of the annual percent persistence of plume length for operating mechanical draft cooling towers at the present site. The plumes are predicted to extend to distances on the order of 30 km on rare occasions. The highest frequen-cies occur between SE and SW, and between NNW and NNE.
| |
| Table 5.1-3 summarizes the persistences of plume lengths when the ambient air temperature is at freezing or below. This represents the total potential for icing by the elevated visible plume. Actual ice accumulation will be much less than these summaries indicate because of solar and artificial heating of surfaces.
| |
| The monthly persistences of plume lengths are given in Table 5.1-4 for all plumes and plumes during freezing condi-tions. The winter months clearly have the longest and most persistent plumes predicted. The shortest plumes are pre-dicted for summer. In August the longest plume extends only to 8 km, compared to beyond 30 km in January.
| |
| Average predicted visible plume widths are given as a function of month and downwind distance in Table 5.1-5. The widest plumes occur in winter. The vertical dimension of the visible plume will generally be of the same order of magni-tude as the width near the site, and as much as an order of magnitude smaller than the width at the longer distances.
| |
| Ground Level Effects. The frequencies of ground level inter-action were calculated to evaluate the potential imapcts.
| |
| Table 5.1-6 summarizes the results of these calculations.
| |
| The only ground level interactions predicted were on the high bluffs agricultural area on the east side of the Columbia River (7 to 8 km NE to ENE of the plant). A 1 km wide arc receives 1 hour and 0.5 hour of fogging and icing, respectively.
| |
| Such results may be sensitive to the assumptions used in the calculation. The effects of varying the plume rise and reflection factor terms were studied. These results are discussed in Reference 31.
| |
| Effect of Fo in and Icin on Commercial 0 erations. No groun leve znteractzons o t e va.sz e p ume were predicted at local airports. A few hours per year of elevated plume occurrence over the Richland and Kennewick airports were
| |
| : 5. 1-12
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER predicted. No elevated or ground fogging was predicted for the Pasco airport (known as the Tri-Cities Airport). The persistences at the Richland airport (18 km south) show no ground fogging and 14 hours of elevated plume occurrences in the annular segment containing the airport. Ef the impact in the sector is apportioned to the 2 km square area bounding Richland airport operations, then about 4 and 1 hours per year of elevated fogging and icing are predicted, respectively.
| |
| Hence the actual interference is expected to be relatively small.
| |
| At distances as great as the Kennewick and Pasco airports, the direction estimates cannot be expected to be necessarily accurate, so it is reasonable to interpret the results as pre-dicting several hours of fogging out to 30 km, which may or may not hit these targets.
| |
| The potential impact on local agricultural operations by the invisible plume was assessed. The atmospheric cooling tower plume is assumed visible out to the point where the lowest possible saturation point is reached. The further mixing with ambient air results in the concentrations within the plume being reduced towards the ambient air concentrations.
| |
| The invisible plume consists of incremental increases in heat and moisture. Considering the very dry conditions indigenous to the summer season in this region,(Table 2.3-1), any incre-mental effect of increased moisture is expected to have a positive effect on plant growth. The only exception to this is during the grain harvesting when low hum'dities are desired for drying the crops.
| |
| The invisible plumes from WNP-2 were considered in detail during the month of June. Later months tend to have lower humidities and June was considered a conservative choice of summer months. The evaluation considered plumes every 4 hours in the direction sectors clockwise between 45'nd 135't distances of 8 and 10 km. These represent the closestimpact areas on the top of the bluff on the east side of the Columbia River.
| |
| The plumes considered represented about 1/4 of the total plumes.
| |
| The maximum plume centerline change in humidity was at 8 km at 0400 PDST. This is given in terms of ambient humidities in Table 5.1-7. Even for this highest centerline value in the analysis, the increase at high humidities is only slight. The average centerline value of all cases is also given. Realis-tically a certain amount of wandering o f the plume can be expected and these centerline values are considered conserva-tive estimates. Hence, the increase in moisture is not believed to be a potential problem. Based on these results, 5.1-13
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER the impact on local agriculture is expected to be small.
| |
| The harvesting period of mid-July to the end of August has lower relative humidities and higher temperatures than any other time of the year. The above estimates show that even the maximum impact of the plume is only slight. Therefore, except in rare and very localized situations, the plume from the plant cannot be expected to interfere with harvesting operation.
| |
| Effect of Fo in and Icin on Traffic. The nearest public highway to the site x.s State Highway 240, which runs about 10 km southwest of the site. In this sector, no fogging or icing at ground level is expected to occur.
| |
| Other roads closer to the site are on the Hanford Reservation and access by the public is controlled. Workers traveling the project road to the FFTF site, to the Hanford operations, and to the WNP-1 and WNP-4 site will rarely if ever encounter ground level fogging or freezing.
| |
| Effect of Chemical Interaction. The WNP-2 cooling tower plumes are not expected to have any significant interaction with other pollutant sources. There are no major single pollutant sources in this region. The Hanford operation has several small fossil-fuelled plants serving specific Hanford facilities. Their impact on the region is very small as evidenced by very low levels of ambient sulfur and nitrogen oxides. The fact that those sources are widely dispersed and mostly 9 to 18 miles from the the site indicates that the probability of the plumes interacting at any significant concentrations is extremely small. The small probability when coupled with the small probability of the plumes contact-ing the ground makes the likelihood of a surface impact insignificant.
| |
| 5.1.4.2 Coolin Tower Drift De osition Theo potential impact. from the cooling tower drift was esti-mated using methods and assumptions described in Subsection 6.1.3.2. Table 5.1-8 presents the results obtained. The first column lists distance from the cooling tower.rate The second column presents the gross salt deposition per year assuming the wind blows equally as often from all directions. (The salt deposition in this table refers to salts naturally occurring in the Columbia River water which is used as makeup water. The contribution of plant additives is small by comparison. The third and fourth columns contain estimates of deposition rates based on the observed maximum wind direction frequencies at the WNP-2 site and at the HMS site. The maximum wind direction frequency at WNP-2 was 9%
| |
| from the south (drift to the north) . The measurement elevation was 23 ft. At an elevation of 400 ft at HMS, the maximum direction frequency was 20% from the northwest (drift to the southeast).
| |
| 5 ~ 1-14 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2*
| |
| ER The maximum direction frequency observed at the HMS 50-ft elevation (17%) is smaller than that, at the HMS 400-ft elevation (20%), but is considerably larger than that at the WNP-2 23-ft elevation (9%) . Since maximum salt deposition would be directly, proportional to direction frequency, use of the HMS 400-ft data might be expected to yield an exces-sively conservative (high) estimate of salt deposition. In contrast, since plume heights were presumed to be between 330 and 1300 ft, use of the 400-ft direction frequencies is more reasonable than use of those measured at lower elevations.
| |
| The deposition rates in Table 5.1-8 are put into perspec-tive by comparison to the amount of salt which could be added to soil through irrigation as shown in the last three columns. Locally, 48 in. of water is a reasonable annual average irrigation requirement.
| |
| The relatively high drift deposition at the 0.25- and 0.3-mile distances as compared to greater distances is due to winter-time high humidities which permit the larger diameter drift droplets to intersect the surface before significant evapora-tion takes place.
| |
| Patterns of salt deposition on the surrounding region were estimated using the wind direction frequencies from the onsite meteorology tower. These are given in Figures 5.4-11 and 5.4-12.
| |
| 5.1.4.3 Effects of Heat Dissi ation S stems, Salt De osition, and Accumulation in Soil The operation of cooling towers .is, expected to .increase the concentration of salts in the soil profile. The salts originate in cooling tower drift droplets that are expected to be deposited on the soil surface, mostly in the near vicinity of the cooling tower. Due to low rainfall, salts are expected to remain in the root zone and with time their concentrations may build up to the point deleterious to the growth of plants.
| |
| The operational activities of the WNP-2 station are expected to have little effect upon game bird and mammal populations.
| |
| However, the operation of the cooling towers may have an impact on nesting populations of shrub-steppe birds, espe-cially the horned lark, western"meadow lark, and the would occur from salt drift released from the mechanical draft cooling towers, especially from salt buildup in soils which in time may build up in the soil profile in concentrations of sufficient strength to prevent the growth of cheatgrass which presently provides the main vegetative cover.
| |
| : 5. 1-15 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The loss of 'cheatgrass and other vegetative cover probably would make the habitat unsuitable for the nesting of these birds. It is likely that vegetation loss, if it occurs, would be a gradual process and effects would not be notice-able during the early years of operation. The impacted acreage is likely to be relatively small, but extending beyond the limits of construction damaged habitat. If the postulated impact were detected it could be mitigated by temporary irrigation to flush salts below the root zone.
| |
| The loss of habitat acreage associated with cooling tower drift, if it occurs at all, would affect the food chain described in Section 2.2.1 in a deleterious fashion. The magnitude of the impact is likely to be closely .related to the number of acres affected.
| |
| 5.1-16 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| TABLE 5.1-1 TIMING OF SALMON ACTIVITIES IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER NEAR HANFORD FROM L. 0. ROTHFUS TESTIMONY IN TPPSEC 71-1 HEARINGS (Exhibit 62)
| |
| Month S ecies Fresh-Water Life Phase Jan Fe Mar ~A r 8~a Jun Ju AucC ~Se Oct Nov Dec Spring Chinook Upstream migration X X Spawning Intragravel development X Fresh-water rearing X X X X X X Downstream migration X X X Summer - Fall Upstream migration X X X X Chinook Spawning X X X Intragravel development X X X X X X Fresh-water rearing X X X X X X X X X X ~ X Downstream migration X X X X X X Coho Upstream migration Spawning Intragravel development X Fresh-water rearing X X X X X X X 3g X X X Downstream migration X X X X Pink Upstream migration Spawning Intragravel development Fresh-water rearing Downstream migration Chum Upstream migration Spawning Intragravel development Fresh-water rearing Downstream migration Sockeye Upstream migration X X X
| |
| 'pawning Intragravel development Fresh-water rearing Downstream migration X X X X X X
| |
| | |
| TABLE 5.1-2 ESTIMATED ANNUAL PERCENT PERSISTENCE OF ELEVATED VISIBLE PLUME LENGTHS Distance (km)
| |
| Direction 10 14 18 24 30 N 3.79 3.68 2.62 1.75 0.63 0.21 0.12 0 3.12 2.75 1.50 0.43 0.13 0.02 0 NE 1.53 1.28 0.90 0.38 0.07 0 , 0 1.03 0.90 0.46 0.22 0.11 0 0.88 0.73 0.41 0.15 0 1.85 1.42 0.73 0.41 0.11 0 SE 2. 74 2. 18 1. 51 0. 87 0. 35 0.23 0. 06 0
| |
| : 4. 11 3. 65 2. 59 1. 14 0. 26 0. 04 0. 04 0. 04 0
| |
| : 3. 78 3. 32 2. 36'. 19 0. 51 0. 17 0. 17 0. 17 0.09 0.06
| |
| : 3. 32 2. 96 1. 87 1. 37 0. 48 0. 02 0. 02 0. 02 0. 02 0 SW 3.34 2.95 1.63 1.08 0.38 0 1.04 0.74 0.45 0.30 0.05 0 0 91 0 59 0 45 0 25 0 09 0 1 42 1 11 0.59 0 29 0.08 0
| |
| : 1. 45 1. 22 0. 88 0. 42 0. 06 0. 06 0. 06 0
| |
| : 3. 67 3. 09 2. 20 1. 10 0. 28 0.06 '.06 0 0 0 Total 38. 0 32. 5 21. 1 11. 3 3.6 0.81 0.52 0. 23 0. 12 0.06
| |
| | |
| TABLE 5'.1-3 ESTIMATED ANNUAL PERCENT PERSISTENCE OF ELEVATED VISIBLE PLUME LENGTHS WITH THE AIR TEMPERATURE 0 C OR LESS Distance (km)
| |
| Direction 4 6 10 14 18 24 30 N 0. 72 0. 72 0. 69 0.69 0.41 0.12 0. 12 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 NE 0 ..0 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 06 0 06 0 SE 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.29 0.23 0.06 0 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.04 0 0.77 0.73 0.73 0.54 0.37 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.09 0.06 1.16 1. 03 0. 81 0. 63 0. 20 0. 02 0. 02 0. 02 0. 02 0 SW 0 98 0 92 0 27 0 15 0 06 0 0.07 0.07 0.07 0 0.09 0.09 0.09 0 0 0
| |
| : 0. 07 0. 07 0. 07 0. 07 0.. 06 0. 06 0. 06 0
| |
| : 0. 32 0. 32 0. 30 0. 30 0. 12 0. 06 0. 06 0 0 0 Total 5. 09 4.86 3. 93 3. 12 1. 68 0.69 0.52 0.23 0. 12 0. 06
| |
| | |
| TABLE 5 i-4 MONTHLY ELEVATED VISIBLE PLUME LENGTHS PERCENT PERSISTENCES Distance (km) for All Plumes Month Jan 46.2 43.9 34.5 22.8 10.5 5.26 3.51 1.75 1.17 0.59 Feb 37.8 33.1 19.6 13.5 5.41 0.68 0 Mar 46.7 40.0 31.7 19.2 6. 67 1. 67 0 Apr 39.4 33.1 23.2 12.0 2.82 0 May 31.0 25.6 16.3 8.5 1.55 0 Jun 33.1 25.0 14.7 7. 35 1.47 Jul 26.5 21.0 11.6 4.42 0 0 Aug 29.9 22.0 8.5 1.22 0 0 0 Sep 42.2 36.4 20.8 11.0 1.30 Oct 41.6 34.3 24.1 13.1 4.38 Nov 29.0 26.1 20.3 8.7 2.90 0 Dec 60.6 58.7 34.9 17.4 7 ' 1.84 0. 92 0.92 0 0 AVERAGE 38.0 32.5 21.1 11.3 3.6 0.81 0.52 0.23 0.12 0. 058 Distance (km) for Free@in Plumes Month 10 14 18 24 Jan 21.1 20.5 18.13 14.0 7.6 4.68 3.51 1.75 1.17 0.59 Feb 6.08 5.41 5.41 4.73 3.38 0.68 0 0 Mar 5.83 5 '3 5. 83 5.83 3.33 1.67 0 Apr 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.4 0 0 May 0 0 Jun ~
| |
| 0 0, 0 0 Jul 0 0 0 0 Aug 0 0 0 Sep 0 0 0 Oct 2.2 2.2 2.2 1.5 0. 73 0 0 0 Nov 0 ' 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0 0 0 Dec 25.7 23.9 12.8 8.3 2.8 0. 92 0.92 0. 92 0 0 AVERAGE 5.1 4.9 3.93 3.12 1.68 0.69 0.52 0.23 0. 12 0. 058
| |
| | |
| TABLE 5.1-5 PREDICTED VISIBLE PLUME WIDTHS IN METERS AS A FUNCTION OF MONTH AND DOWNWIND DISTANCE%
| |
| Distance (m) 1000 2000 6000 14000
| |
| 'onth 000 Jun 120 130 185 0 Jul 110 125 155 0 Aug 105 115 110 0 Sep 130 150 180 0 Oct 130 170 260 0 0 Nov 175 200 275 0 0 Dec 165 175 310 (320) 0 Jan 180 200 305 350 (385)
| |
| Feb 170 195 265 0 0 Mar 155 185 270 (270) 0 Apr 145 170 230 0 0 May 125 150 215 0 0
| |
| * Values are averages of all nonzero values. Values in parentheses are based on three or less cases.
| |
| | |
| TABLE 5.l-6
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF FOGGING IMPACT ESTIMATES Average Average Distance Plume Frequency* Plume Width Direction (Hours km) (km)
| |
| Location Hei ht** All Ice All Ice Richland Airport 20 km S Groundlevel 0 0 0 0 Plume centerline 1.6 "
| |
| 1.6 0.38 0.38 Tri-Cities Airport (Pasco) 29 km SE Groundlevel 0 0 200 feet 0 0 All plumes 0 0 Kennewick Airport 29 km S Groundlevel 0 0 0 0 All plumes 0.44 0.44 0.3 0.3 Top of Red Mountain 20 km SSW 0 0 Rattlesnake Hills High Areas 20 km WSW-SW 0 0 Rattlesnake Hills Slopes 11-17 km Wsw 0 0 Bluffs Area on East Side of Columbia River 11 km N-NE 0 0 0 0 7-8 km NE-ENE 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 8-9 km E 0 0 0 0 9 km ESE 0 0 0 0 9 km SE 0 0 0 0 10 km SE 0 0 0 0 FFTF 5 km SSW-SW 0 0 0 0 State Highway 240 10 km SW 0 0 0 0 300 Area Buildings 11 km SSE 0 0 0 0 Project Highways 3 and 6 km NW-WNW 0 0 0 0 L'xxon Facility 14 km SSE 0 0 0 0 200 Area West Buildings 23 km WNW 0 0 0 0 200 Area East Buildings 14 km WNW 0 ,0 0 0 Top of Federal Building 20 km SSE 0 0 0 0 Gable Mountain 20 km NW 0 0 0 0 Top Hanford Meteorology Tower 20 km WNW 0 0
| |
| * Frequenc es are given as the number of hours that fog was computed for 1 km arcs within the sectors. These arcs are defined as 1 km sections of circles with centers at the cooling tower and radii of the specified distances to the cooling towers.
| |
| ** Groundlevel unless specified.
| |
| | |
| TABLE 5.1-7 INCREASE IN RELATIVE HUMIDITY AT POINTS OF MAXIMUM POTENTIAL IMPACT 0400 All Hours Ambient 8 km 10 km 8 km 10 km 90% 91.7 90. 8 90. 6 90. 3 80 83.4 81.6 81.1 80.6 60 66.8 63.2 62.3 61.1 40 50.2 44.8 43.4 41.7 20 33.6 26.4 24.6 22.2 TABLE 5.1-8 SALT DEPOSITION RATE VERSUS DISTANCE Salt Deposition (lb/acre r) % of Normal 48 in. of Irri ation Equal 9% a from 20% from Equal 9% from 20% from Distance from Direction Single Single Direction Single Single Tower (miles) Direction Direction Direction 0 to 0.22 nil nil nil nil nil nil 0.22 to 0.28 271.0 390.0 867.0 29. 0 42.0 93.0 0.28 to 0.33. 166.0 239.0 531.0 18.0 26.0 58.0 0.33 to 0.6 0.4 0.6 1.3 0. 04 .06 0.13 0.6 to 3 0.7 1.0 2.2 0. 07 0.10 0.22 0.7 1.0 2.2 0. 07 0.10 0.22 (a) 16-point compass presumed. Maximum wind direction frequency observed at WNP-2 site was 9%. Measurement elevation was 23 ft.
| |
| (b) 16-point compass presumed. Maximum wind direction frequency observed at HMS site was 20%. Measurement elevation was 400 ft.
| |
| | |
| tdPn 0 POlQ I .g 4 0
| |
| m OS Jn + ! II !il!
| |
| III'"'ji; lill Iili ill: Ii!:
| |
| !!Ii liii fff tt
| |
| !'~j.'
| |
| !
| |
| I 'jlj ii:,! I!',I '.-j'j j;!i ii!! !i!',
| |
| !j."i!!!!LII IIL I
| |
| I! I i:lil Iijj il I 1141 t
| |
| "I'll 4
| |
| I j lsl:, \
| |
| 4 ~
| |
| 44
| |
| ~ ~ - ~
| |
| f~o 4 4 I \
| |
| I' jlfi Ifjf '}II! ii! ! Elj !j!l i'. 1st 4 ' I' 4 ~
| |
| I'ii!i!.''
| |
| I l!iff, ii'ill BOTTOM T EMP ER ATV El i' !l'l! i!,", !iI'! Ii': ! i!! ill! I!I'Il! I t 4 l1 It ls a
| |
| II
| |
| ~ ll 1",; ~ 'I I~
| |
| !!II ',I!.'L-I:.'
| |
| ~
| |
| I ~ ift li! II i III 44 fts O Ol '
| |
| 0 HC 44 t
| |
| llii Iiffi iIL It 1 ~,
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 1 i II1 RIVER FLOW 38,000 CFS fill lilt Ifjf 'll! 'li fjl I
| |
| I
| |
| ! 'I lit
| |
| !:,;:, ~
| |
| WNP-2 BLOWOOWN ~ d,d00 GPM 4
| |
| ~ '
| |
| OV g 2 ii 1 t~
| |
| Ii
| |
| '.
| |
| a I}
| |
| I !Iii I ~ f 11 fi I ~
| |
| 11 WNP.2 g To 14oF WITHOUT WNP. I/4 OPERATING 1
| |
| IL I'
| |
| !!il 11! I f,
| |
| I ~
| |
| fill !411 ill. 4 WITH WNP-III OPERATING 4
| |
| I IIII tl fl if f1 ILlf ", il'1 ail liii at'i!I I li,f Iili !It I- SVR FACET EMPE RATVRE,, fii'I'",
| |
| i!Ii
| |
| !!.! I l Ill li . 1!jl 'll, li 1st ~
| |
| tf) :.I "i 4 4 4 '4 4
| |
| 10 . I.
| |
| il illj ~
| |
| j i ~ ",I; iijl ~
| |
| fii ;. 11 tt I "i jt)
| |
| '! 'f:1 1
| |
| "
| |
| I~ -.
| |
| O J 4 X till I !: I I ':ii ~
| |
| II 'l ~~
| |
| I 4
| |
| 111
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 'I'-: -fi'
| |
| ~
| |
| II~
| |
| ~
| |
| tff': 'Ii!l
| |
| ~
| |
| I 4 z i:ti:I lili ~ ~
| |
| ! I
| |
| ~
| |
| I4
| |
| ~ ifff I 'I,'1:
| |
| I la ~
| |
| I II I Ffl IC 4
| |
| iiii ,, 41 'll: J
| |
| ~s ~ I~ !1!i
| |
| '4 ~
| |
| ~ I 1 4 ~
| |
| I I I ~,
| |
| Z ~
| |
| I 44
| |
| ~ I ~ 1
| |
| ;'I;!!i!:i! !!Ii
| |
| ~ '
| |
| TTT Kl U7 0 ls 4 ~ ~ II! ii!I;!I !I I !: 1 I ~1 I ll
| |
| ~ 'I il
| |
| ~
| |
| !.I !I!I !!!
| |
| I I ~ ~
| |
| ii:I LLII!iLI !i'4 ':. aj'.1
| |
| 'l
| |
| ',I!i 'll'f ID i::I: II!! If!' if' TTT D D
| |
| CL 4
| |
| I~~~
| |
| 3 ID l1 jt i'i!-; I':I
| |
| ~ I I I J'*.I! fjll If!i aaf I slit ii'ili!
| |
| I
| |
| ~ !I I i i!
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| 4III .''
| |
| j I 4 Nl TTl ~ ~ II ~ 4 i! ! 4 4 I! ! ilj'l!li
| |
| \
| |
| :I
| |
| ~
| |
| it
| |
| , If'I
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| I t 4 ~ ~
| |
| i! I ill:: llii ii:i H I '. ~ ~
| |
| I',! I;III l! ~ ~
| |
| * all Ftl I jil ! Iii 'j I i!II ii!'fij
| |
| ':,: i ill I! Iii ij!I i!!I lll! l!ii!I! Iit I!! --!iil 4 t txj I Fl Tl C+
| |
| 0 III!
| |
| ! ail lii ij!I :I!: i.:. !!i I
| |
| l.l I!!I i! jilt jl.! I! III
| |
| !I l! V. I fgs Ijjj I sail H Ftl O 10 30 50 100 300 500 Q l/) CJ'D Ul 2 DISTANCE DOWNSTREAM FROM WNP.2 DISCHARGE, FEET I
| |
| | |
| XMQ 50)4 ISOTHERM PLOT FOR WNP-I/4 AND WNP.2 PLUMES RIVER FLOW ~ 36,000 CFS ESTIMATED 0.26 F ISOTHERM IF DEPTH WERE UNIFORMLYREDUCED 80 O Cll 60 0 RC I- 0 25oF rt R W 40 Q Q O 20 Z 050 F O.S'F I- 1 ooF I ooF ch 0 Q
| |
| 2O K
| |
| I-60 P 80 O(
| |
| I
| |
| ~M 100 om DZ
| |
| ~Oll U
| |
| I WNP-2 OUTFALL m a miM C) opl C) (
| |
| C/l Qo O (D
| |
| 1200 Ol mmI DISTANCE FROM WNP-1/4 OUTFALL, FFET I
| |
| FO Vl&
| |
| | |
| 75 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF DISCHARGE 045oF 05 F 0 75oF 0 SoF 045oF 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 LATERALDISTANCE, FEET 200 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF DISCHARGE 045oF 0 5oF 025oF 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 LATERAL DISTANCE, FEET Amendment 4, October 1980 CROSS-SECTION OF l<NP-2 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM BLOllDOMH PLUI)E ISOTHER1S WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.. 2
| |
| ~
| |
| Environmental Report FIG. g 13
| |
| | |
| FIGURE DELETED PIG.
| |
| HINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 Environmental Report
| |
| : 5. 1-4
| |
| | |
| FIGURE DELETED WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 Environmental Report FIG - 5. 1-5
| |
| | |
| FIGURE DELETED HINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 Environmental Report FIG. 5.],-6
| |
| | |
| FIGURE DELETED NASHINGTON PUBLIC PONER SUPPLY SYSTEM NPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 Environmental Report FIG ~ 5. 1-7
| |
| | |
| FIGURE DELETED SHlYGTON PiJBLXC POb'ER S(.'PPLY SYS'ZKZ~
| |
| h~aPGS NUCLEAR PRO JECT NO. 2 F.nvi.".oriental Re"or t
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| PXG. 5. ].-8
| |
| | |
| I 0Otd c
| |
| A PREFERRED TEMPERATURE g B ZONE OF THERMAl TOLERANCE I
| |
| 18 C IN'I ENT LETHALTEMPERATURE CL 30 D ULTIMATE INC I P I ENT LETHALTEMPERATURE CD 40 OM
| |
| (-3C CD TEMPERATURE AT POINT OF BLOWDOWN UJ 8 rt W V OV ~z I D I
| |
| z"
| |
| ~
| |
| 14 ~ TEMPERATURE 15 ft. BELOW THE OUTfALl
| |
| $O ~
| |
| m D O
| |
| 0 CL 20 D(77.2 F(
| |
| Qo ga L1J 10 I I 0 C(69.8 F(
| |
| Z X C7 10 zz CO 6 0 0 A(43.6 -57.2 f.)
| |
| ~e ~
| |
| ~ ee cC
| |
| ) 2 ~ e e 12 16 '0 24 AMB I ENT RIVER TEMPERATURE, C 40 50 60 70 80 OC, td 0
| |
| g AMB I ENT Rl VER TEMPERATURE, F Vl I
| |
| td C
| |
| | |
| DEATH (D)
| |
| EQUI LI BR IUM LOSS (EL)
| |
| ~ GEOMETR I C MEAN DEATH TIME 0 GEOMETRIC MEAN EQUI LI BR IUM LOSS TIME 10, 000 1, 000 I
| |
| IN 0 = 9.06-1.05 IxI IN EL = 8.82-1.15 ixI WHERE x = TEST TEMPERATURE - 25 100 JUVENILE CHINOOK SALMON, 1970 OF 74 76 78 80 82 10 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 TEST TEMPERATURE, C EQUILIBRIUM LOSS AND DEATH TIMES WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM AT VARIOUS TEMPERATURES FOR WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO ~ 2 JUVENILE CHINOOK SALMON Environmental Report R. E. Nakatani, Exhibit 49 TPPSEC 71-1.5eari::n RIG 5. 1-10
| |
| | |
| 200 300 200 100 0.50 mi W
| |
| 100 10 200 300 400 300 200 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM SALT DEPOSITION PATTERNS OUT TO WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO ~ 2 0.5 MILE (lb/acre/yr)
| |
| Environmental Repor t FIG. 5. l-ll
| |
| | |
| O' 1.0 1.4 1.6 1.2 LO 6.9 mi 3.6 mi 0.6 4.4 mi 5.3 mi 04~18mi 5.0 mi 0.465 ml I
| |
| '0.6 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 Siv SE 1.0 1.0 1.2 HKSZZNGTON PUBLiC POWER SUPPLY SYSTZM SALT DEPOSITION PATTERNS OUT TO NPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 6.9 NILE (1b/acre/yr)
| |
| Environmental Report, FIG ~ 5. y-3.2
| |
| | |
| VrNP-2 ER 5.2 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT FROM ROUTINE OPERATION During normal operation o any nuclear plant, radioactive material 's generated. -Regardless of the effectiveness of the advanced liquid and gas treatment systems requirement it that is a prudent potential design practice and an NRC design release paths be identified and any offsite effects evalu-ated. Details of the radwaste system and design assumptions regarding overall plant perfogayce ray are described in Sec-tion 3.5 based on conservative assumptions regarding fuel failures and system leakage. The system is designed to meet the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR 50 and applicable sections of 10 CFR 20. Radiological impact calculations have been performed in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.109 or models developed by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.
| |
| 5.2.1 Exposure Pathways The potential release paths considered in the design of this nuclear plant include releases to the atmosphere as a gas or vapor and release to the river. Radionuclides released to the atmosphere would be primarily noble gases, which w'ould not be taken up by vegetation or animals. However, any radioiodine and particulates released may be deposited on or taken up by vegetation, from which they, may enter into a food chain ending in man or other biota.
| |
| Radionuclides in liqu'd effluents would be available for uptake in algae and other water plants, fish, clams, and crustaceans living in the river. Radionuclides may be accumulated by these organisms to concentrations greater than in the surrounding water. Predators of the more simple organisms, such as small animals, fish and birds, may concen-trate these nuclides still further. In addition, silt some river radionuclides may be deposited with the on the bottom and shoreline and lead to external exposure of biota; Figure 5.2-1 shows the exposure pathways to biota from
| |
| ~iP-2 .
| |
| Radionuclides released into the plant liquid effluents reach man through a variety of pathways, involving both external exposure and internal exposure. Pathways of external expo-sure include such activities as swimming, boating and skiing on waters downstream from the plant, also hiking, fishing, etc., along the river shore. Pathways leading to internal exposure include the consumption of drinking water, .fish and waterfowl from the river, produce from gardens irr'gated (a) In this context, "conservative" assumptions are those which will increase the expected release of radioactive material.
| |
| 5.2-1 Amendment 3
| |
| ,January 1979
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER with river water, and animal products such as meat, eggs and milk from animals who eat irrigated feed or'pasture grass.
| |
| a~
| |
| Exposure via the airborne pathways includes both external exposure to skin and total body from the noble gases and internal exposure from inhalation of tritium, radioiodines and particulates released from the plant. Also, internal exposures may be received from the consumption of foods produced from vegetation on which radionuclides of plant origin may be deposited. Such foods include fresh leafy vegetables from local, gardens and milk from cows foraging on pasture grass. In addition, direct exposure may be received from the transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes outside the pl'ant boundary and from the plant itself.
| |
| Figure 5.2-2 shows the exposure pathways to man from WNP-2.
| |
| 5.2.2 Radioactivit in the Environment, Table 5.2-1 lists the amounts of radionuclides and the associated concentrations in a blowdown flow of 5.76 cfs.
| |
| A few feet downstream from the discharge point, the effluent will be diluted to 10% of its original concentration, while a few miles downstream the effluent will be entirely mixed in the river with a dilution of 1:20,000, assuming an average river flow of 120,000 cfs.
| |
| Table 5.2-2 lists the amounts of radionuclides that may be released to the atmosphere from WNP-2. Also listed in Table 5.2-2 are the associated concentrations in the effluent of WNP-2 which are discharged to the atmosphere. The effluent is then diluted further by prevailing meteorological conditions. Table 5.2-3 lists, the annual average atmospheric dilution factors (X/Q') derived from 1 year of meteorological data collected at the site (see Section 6.1 for a discussion of the methodology and release point assumptions used to determine the X/Q values) .
| |
| Effluents from WNP-1 and -4 used to calculate radiation doses from those plants in this report were taken from Section 5.3 .t3 of the Environmental Report for WNP-1 and -4.
| |
| Table 5.2-4 lists concentrations of several radionuclides in various environmental media and foodstuffs. The nuclides listed were chosen because they may be important in terms of radiation dose to man.
| |
| II
| |
| : 5. 2-2 Amendment. '3 Ja'nuary 1979
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 5.2.3 Dose Rate Estimates for Biota Other Than Man Using the source terms and assumptions in Tables 5.2-5, 5.2-6, 5.2-7, and models in Appendix II, doses were estimated for organisms living in or close to the water such a fish, clams, and crustacea which derive an internal dose from sorption of the'ater in which they live and from consumption of plankton.
| |
| External doses are received from the,. surrounding water and sometimes from the mud on the river bottom. Animals and birds, which prey on these smaller creatures, derive an internal dose from the radionuclides contained in their diet and external doses from air, water, and shoreline. Some geese reside near the Hanford Reservation most of the year.
| |
| These birds do not consume aquatic food and so receive most of their radiation dose from external exposure to contami-nated water or shoreline. Animals such as deer, coyotes, and field mice that do not consume aquatic food or spend much time at the river bank, will receive their dose through direct radiation from the plant's gaseous effluent plume, ingestion of terrestrial vegetation and external doses due to exposure to contaminated ground. The dose from inhalation of radionuclides and consumption of terrestrial vegetation will be small. Animals such as deer may receive an external dose rate of less than 1 mrad/yr from WNP-2 if near the plant boundary 50% of the time. A slight additional dose may be received by such animals due to grazing. Table 5.2-8 lists dose rates to biota associated with airborne and waterborne releases of radioactive material from WNP-2.
| |
| Numerous investigations have been made on the effects of radioactivity on biota. No effects have been observed at dose rates as low as those associated with the proposed WNP-2 effluents. Investigations of Chironomid larvae, bloodworms, living in bottom sediments near Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where they were irradiated at the rate of about 230 to 240 rad/yr for more than 130 generations, have shown no decrease in'abundance, even though a slightlylj.ncreased number of chromosome aberrations have occurred.
| |
| Studies have shown that irradiation of salmon eggs and larvae from the Columbia River at a rate of 500 mrad/day did not affect the number of fish returning from the ocean or their ability to spawn.afoot Previously, when all the Hanford reactors were operating, studies were made on the effect of their released radionuclides on spawning salmon.
| |
| These studies have shown that these salmon have not been dose rates in the range of 100 to 200 mrad/
| |
| effacing( by week.,
| |
| 5.2-3 Amendment 3 January 1979
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Since the estimated doses to Columbia River biota from the radioactive effluents released by WNP-2 will be many times less than those mentioned in the above studies, no percep-tible effect on the biota in the environs is expected.
| |
| 5.2.4 Dose Rate Estimates for Man Using the source terms and assumptions in Tables 5.2-5, 5.2-6, 5.2-7 and the models in Appendix XI, doses were estimated for individuals living near the plant and for the population within 50 miles of the plant. Tables 5.2-9 and 5.2-10 summarize the annual radiation doses to an individual which could be attributed to WNP-2 only, and in combination with WNP-1 and WNP-4.
| |
| 5.2.4.1 Li uid Pathwa People may be exposed to the radioactive material released in the liquid effluent from WNP-2 by drinking water, eating fish, eating irrigated farm products and by participating in recreational activities on or along the Columbia River.
| |
| Drinkin Water The population within 50 miles of the site utilizing Columbia River water for drinking includes the cities of Pasco and Richland. The city of Kennewick utilizes groundwater drawn from collectors placed along the Columbia River. Historically, the Kennewick city water has contained significantly lower concentrations of radionuclides of Hanford origin than the water in the Pasco municipal system immediately, across the river. The water table slopes toward the river from the Kennewick highlands, channeling uncontaminated water into the aquifers adjacent to the river.
| |
| The cities of Richland and Pasco have efficient alum-floe water treatment plants capable of removing a significant fraction of the radionuclides in the incoming water. Samples of the water entering and leaving these two water treatment plants were collected and analyzed for several years under the AEC environmental monitoring program at Hanford. Results of these measurements have been used to define the removal efficiencies for specific radionuclides during the years 1960 through 1968. These data, which represent the fraction passing through the treatment plant, are summarized in Table 5.2-11 along with estima)g$ values for chemically similar nuclides not measured.
| |
| The Hanford Reservation 300 Area utilizes Columbia River water for drinking purposes also. This intake is located approxi-mately seven(7) miles downriver from the WNP-2 discharge. The 300 Area also has an alum-floe water treatment plant which removes a fraction of the radionuclides. The water from the 5.2-4 Amendment 3 January 1979
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER plant is mixed with a significant portion of well water prior to consumption. The concentration of radionuclides in the river water used here is not expected to be significantly different than that used in Richland or Pasco.
| |
| When estimating radiation doses, the radionuclide content of drinking water in the cities of .Pasco and Richland was calculated .from the annual releases (given in Table 5.2-1) diluted in the average river flow. The resulting concentrations in the river were then reduced by the factors in Table 5.2-11 and decayed for 24 hours travel time from the effluent discharge point downriver and through the water plant to the consumer.
| |
| Assuming a consumption rate of 2.0 R/day,of water, a typical adult would receive a total-body dose rate of 1.7 x 10 mrem/yr from, this source. The total estimated population of consumers in 2020 (75,000) drinking an average of 1.2 R/day would receive an integrated total-body dose rate 7.7 x 10 man-rem/yr. The radiation dose rate to the individual adult thyroid from consumption gf 2.0 R/day, of drinking water was estimated to be 9.0. x 10 mrem/yr.
| |
| Radiation doses due to consumption of river water were not calculated for workers in the 300 Area of the Hanford Reservation since they are not considered to be a critical group. These individuals are in a restricted area where occupational dose limits are applicable. Effluents from the WPPSS site could contribute only a very small fraction of the occupational exposure limits. Since most individuals working in the 300 Area live within'0 miles of the site, population dose estimates due to plant effluents include these people when they are not on the Hanford Reservation.
| |
| When WNP-1 and, WNP-4 begin operation, the calculated radiation 3 dose to a typical adult in Richland or,Pasco would be 1.8 x 10 mrem/yr to the total-body. The calculated population total-body dose is 8.0 x 10 man-rem/yr.
| |
| Pish and Waterfowl Because fish will concentrate most radionuclides from the water <hey inhabit, the potential radiation dose from consumption of Columbia River fish was estimated for both the individual "and the population within 50 miles of the plant. There is some waterfowl hunting around the perimeters of the Hanford Reservation. Some of these waterfowl could conceivably derive part of their diet from fish or aquatic plants from water downstream of the plant,, but most waterfowl eaten by people (i. e., ducks and geese) consume primarily grains.
| |
| 5.2-5 Amendment 3 January 1979
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Based on the assumptions found in Table 5.2-6 (5) the internal dose rate to the individual fisherman would be 2.2 mrem/yr to his total body due to effluents from WNP-2.4 Integrated dose rate to the population would be 3.9 x 10 man-rem/yr from fish consumption. After WNP-1 and WNP-4 have begun operation, the fisherman would receive a total-body dose of 2.3 mrem/yr. The (otal-body dose rate to the population would be 4.3 x 10 man-rem/yr. The radiation dose to an individual due to consumption of waterfowl will be insignificant.
| |
| Water Recreation Aquatic recreation is a popular pastime in the stretch of the Columbia River below the plant site. Swimming, boating, water skiing and picnicking along the shore or on islands could(gysult in small incremental doses to the local popula-tion. Using the assumptions listed in Table 5.2-6 the total-body dose rate to an individual from external exposure would total about 9.3 x 10 mrem/yr. The qgyulation dose received during water recreation activities can be estimated on the basis of the assumptions listed in Table 5.2-6.
| |
| Under these conservative assumptions, the integrate[ popula-tion dose rate from water sports would be 3.0 x 10 man-rem/yr, principally from exposure to the contaminated shoreline.
| |
| No detectable increase in radiation dose will result from this pathway when WNP-1 and WNP-4 begin operation.
| |
| Irri ated Farm Products I
| |
| Estimates were made of doses derived from consuming food products produced on farms and gardens downstream from the plant using irrigation water from the river. It was assumed the individual will eat food that will be grown directly under such irrigation plus eggs, milk, and meat from animals consuming feed grown under irrigation. Table 5. 2-12 lists the food paths considered along with some typical parameters used in the calculation of the dose to the individual. The dose to the population was estimated using these assumptions, except that the consumption rates were reduced by one-half.
| |
| The holdup is the period between the release of the radionuclides and deposition on the ground or on plants plus any time periods between harvest and consumption. In the case of eggs, beef or pork, when the animal will eat grain, the holdup also includes the time between the grain harvest and its consumption by the animal as well as the time between the slaughter of the animal (or egg laying) and consumption of the animal product by an individual. For the forage-milk pathway, the holdup includes the time between irrigation of plants and consumption by the cow as well as the time between milking and consumption of milk by an individual. The dose rate estimated to the total-body of an individual from the consumption of all 13 food types which are irrigated is 5.9 x 10 mrem/yr.
| |
| 5.2-6 Amendment 3 January 1979
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER At the present time, the nearest point at which Columbia River water is withdrawn for irrigation of farm products downstream of the site is at the Tavlor Flat area, approxi-mately 4.2 miles ESE of the plant. A second point of withdrawal is the Riverview District of Pasco. Other irrigation water used either adjacent to the site or in the Kennewick area comes from the Grand Coulee Dam area or the Yakima River.
| |
| Water use at Taylor Flat is for irrigation of an estimated 300 acres of hay crops. The total land availa()y for irrigation in the Riverview District is about 5300 acres. It is doubtful that this amount of land could produce food for more than a few thousand people. Since some additional irrigation occurs near Burbank using Columbia River water, it was conservatively assumed that a maximum of 10,000 persons could consume irrigated food products or this population dose estimate. The point at which water is taken from the river for irrigation in the Riverview District is about 12 miles from the plant outfall. This coupled with the fact that there are several islands between the outfall and the point of withdrawal will give complete mixing of all effluents in the river. From these assumptions the annual whole-body dose to the population from irrigated food products is estimated to be 1.6 x 10 man-rem. When WNP-1 and WNP-4 begin operation, the radiatiog dose to an individual from this pathway will be 2.3 x 10 mrem/yr to the total-body. The annual total-body population dose would be 8.0 x 10 man-rem/yr.
| |
| 5.2.4.2 Gaseous Pathwa s People may be exposed to radioactive material released to the atmosphere by WNP-2 via inhalation, air submersion and ingestion of farm products.
| |
| Air Submersion Maximum offsite exposures occur in the southeast sector. An individual located 0.5 miles from4the plant could recieve a total-body dose rate of36.7 x 10 mrem/hr while his skin dose would be 1.2 x 10 mrem/hr. However, since the location is now on Federally-owned land (the Hanford Reservation),
| |
| the general public would not ordinarily be allowed access.
| |
| A more probable location for occupancy by the general public would be a point just offshore from the plant about 3.5 miles ESE, where a fisherman might fish from a boat. Here the atmospheric dilu)ion factor at. the shoreline is the greatest,
| |
| : 3. 0 x 10 sec/m . The external total-body dose ratm to the fisherman at this point is estimated to be 5.4 x 10 mrem/hr.
| |
| An avid fisherman remaining here 50$ hr/yr would receive an annual total-body dose of 2.7 x $ 0 mrem; his skin dose would be approximately 4. 8 x 10 At present the closest point to the plant at which people reside is across the river at Ringold Flat, approximately 4 miles ENE of WNP-2. However, the atmospheric dilution 5.2-7 Amendment 3 January 1979
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER factor is greater at the second closest residence across the river at Taylor Flat. Airborne radiation doses were estimated for an individual occupying this location (Taylor Flat) all year. Thy atmospheric dilution factor was estimated to be
| |
| : 2. 6 x 10 sec/m at this location. The total-body and skin dose rates from external radiation were estimated to be 0.14 mrem/yr and 0.28 mrem/yr, respectively. When WNP-1 and WNP-4 begin operation, the individual at Taylor Flat would receive 0.17 mrem/yr to the total-body and 0.69 mrem/yr to the skin.
| |
| "The annual total-body air submersion dose to the estimated 2020 population residing within a 50-mile radius of the plant was estimated. Table 5.2-13 shows that the estimated 270,000 persons living within the region in 2020 would receive an annual external dose of only 1.6 man-rem from the radioactive gaseous effluents released into the atmosphere by WNP-2. With the later addition of WNP-1 and WNP-4, a total-body dose would increase to 2.1 man-rem/yr.
| |
| Xnhalation An individual residing at Taylor Flat would receive a mrem/yr due to inhalation of dose'o the total-body of 8.1 x 10 P radioiodines and particulates and absorption of tritium through the skin. The radiation dose to the thyroid of this individual would be 7.8 x 10 mrem/yr. The fisherman located 3.5 miles from the plant for 500 hours duping the year would receive a total-body dose of 5.1 x 10 mrem/yr via this pathway. The annual total-body radiation dose to the population within 50 miles of WNP-2 due to inhalation/
| |
| transpiration would be 2.3 x 10 man-rem.
| |
| When WNP-1 and WNP-4 begin operation, an individual at Taylor Flat would receive a total-body dose of 4.4 x 10 and a thyroid dose of 9.5 x 10-2 mrem/yr. At that time, the annual total-body radiation dose to the population would be
| |
| : 0. 10 man- rem/yr .
| |
| Farm Products Estimates were made of radiation doses received from consum-ing farm products produced in the vicinity of the plant which might be affected'y airborne effluents. Table 5.2-12 lists the 14 food items considered along with some typical parameters used in the calculation of dose to the individual.
| |
| The dose to the population within 50 miles of the site was estimated using these same assumptions, except that the consumption rates were reduced by one-half. The dose rate from this pathway )or an individual residing at Taylor Flat woujcl he 8.9 x 10 mrem/yr to the total-hocty aud l. 8 mrem/yr to the thyroid.
| |
| 5.2-8 Amendment 3 January 1979
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER For the population dose estimate, i't was assumed that all land not on the Hanford Reservation or in an urban area could be used for agriculture and that the entire population within 50 miles (270,000) might eat food grown in this area.
| |
| Using these assumptions, the annual total-body jose to the population from this pathway would be 6.9 x 10 man-rem/yr.
| |
| When WNP-1 and WNP-4 begin operation, an individual at Taylor Flyt would receive a dose rate to the total body of 4.4 x 10 mrem/yr and 2.2 mrem/yr to the thyroid. The total-body dose rate to the population at that time would be 0.27 man-rem/yr.
| |
| Milk The air~grass~cow~milk pathway, which for some nuclear plants is quite critical because of milk cows actually pastured on or near the fenceline, is of less importance for these projects because cows are not pastured very close to the plant. Since the plant is on DOE property and natural pasture is sparse, it. is very unlikely that milk cows would be pastured at, the fenceline in the foreseeable future.
| |
| The closest point at which a milk cow is now pastured is across the river 4.3 miles southeast of the site at Taylor Flat.
| |
| The atmospheric7dilutign factor at this location is estimated to be 2.6 x 10 sec/m . The estimated thyroid dose rate to an infant consuming 1 i of milk each day from cows pastured 9 months of the year at this farm would be 9.0 mrem/yr.
| |
| The dose rate to an adult consuming the same amount of milk would be 1.2 mrem/yr.
| |
| When WNP-1 and WNP-4 begin operation, these doses would increase to ll mrem/yr to an infant's thyroid and 1.4 mrem/yr to an adult's thyroid.
| |
| 5.2.4.3 Direct Radiation From Facilit Radiation From Facilit Wastes from WNP-2 will be stored in tanks within concrete buildings so that radiation levels to workers within the plant boundaries will be below applicable standards. In addition, tanks containing low levels of activity will be situated and shielded to reduce dose rates at the site boundary to very small levels. Since the plant is located inside the Hanford Reservation it is not expected that the general public will be close to the plant site long enough to receive any measurable radiation exposure from turbine shine.
| |
| 5.2-9 Amendment 3 January 1979
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL Construction workers at WNP-1 and WNP-4 will receive some radiation dose due to the operation of WNP-2. If an individual were to work 0.5 miles from WNP-2, he would receive a total-body dose of 2.5 mrem/yr from N-16 turbine shine.(10) This worker would also receive about 0.7 mrem/yr due to the airborne, release of radioactive material from WNP-2. When WNP-2 begins operation, approximately 3200 construction workers will be building WNP-1 and WNP-4. If these workers are located an average of 1 mile from WNP-2, the total-body radiation dose to those workers would be 4.4 man-rem/yr.
| |
| Trans ortation of Radioactive Materials Since the locations of fuel fabrication plants, reprocessing plants and waste disposal facilities have not been determined, transportation routes have not been decided. However, a generic study(8> has estimated that radiation dose rates to the general public from transportation of radioactive materials will not exceed 5 man-rem/yr per 3 unit. It is expected that the value estimated from the actual routing
| |
| (
| |
| of the plant's radioactive material transport will be lower than this since much of the route will be through sparsely populated regions of the western United States or the waste may not be transported outside of the Hanford Site. /3 5.2.5 Summar of Annual Radiation Doses Table 5.2-14 lists the annual radiation doses received by individuals residing near the site from the major pathways. It is conceivable that one individual residing at Taylor Flat could be exposed simultaneously via several pathways. If this individual were an avid fisherman, drank milk from the nearest cow and ate farm products affected by plant effluents ( liquid and airborne), he might receive a total-body radiation dose of 2.3 mrem/yr, a thyroid dose of 2.4 mrem/yr and a bone dose of 1.8 mrem/yr.
| |
| The estimated annual doses to the population affected by the operation of the WNP-2 and the cqmPined operation of WNP-2, WNP-1 and WNP-4 are given in Table 5.2-15.<a) The total populat'ion dose estimate includes I5 the transportation of radioactive materials (spent fuel and wastes) from the plants as well as the doses received via the air and water pathways. The dose to the population from the direct radiation from the R
| |
| I a The population doses presented in the preceding subsect'ions and in Tables 5.2-13 and -15 are based on population estimates documented in Ref. 6.1-47. These estimates were revised (see Section 2.1, Amendment 5) by Ref. 2.1-2, however, the doses were not recalcu-lated because approximately 75K of the population dose is associ-ated with radioactive material shipment and because the changes in projected population would not greatly change the dose from the liquid and gaseous pathways.
| |
| 5.2-10 Amendment 5 July 1981
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL plants is assumed negligible, since the closest point to the site con-tinuously occupied is more than 3 miles away from any one plant, and the point occupied intermittently by a fisherman is more than 2 miles.
| |
| The annual population dose from all sources attributable to all three plants operating simultaneously is 18 man-rem. By comparison the background radiation dose rate from natural sources in this region is approximately 105 mrem/yr,(a) resulting in an annual dose of 28,000 man-rem to the same population. Therefore, routine operations of the WNP-l, WNP-2 and WNP-4 operating simultaneously at this site, will con-tribute a very small increment to the total-body dose already received as a result of the natural background radiation.
| |
| (a) Approximately 80 mrem/yr from external sources and 25 mrem/yr from internal sources (mostly K-40).(8)
| |
| Amendment 5 July 1981
| |
| | |
| NNP-2 ER TABLE 5. 2-1 RELEASE RATES AND CONCENTRATION OF RADIONUCLIDES IN LIQUID EFFLUENTS FROM NNP-2 Concentration in Release Plant Effluents
| |
| ~Zsoto s ~(Ci/ ) ( Ci/R)
| |
| H-3 12. 0 2.3E+3 Na-24 6.6E-3 1.3 P-32 2.6E-4 5. 1E-2 Cr-51 6.7E-3 1.3 bin-54 8.0E-5 1.6E-2 Mn-56 7.1E-3 1.4 Fe-55 1~ 4E-3 2.7E-l Fe-59 4.0E-5 7.8E-3 Co-58 2.7E-4 5.2E-4 Co-60 5.5E-4 1~ lE-1 Ni-65 4.0E-5 7.8E-3 Cu-64 2.0E-2 3.9 Zn-65 2.7E-4 5 'E-2 Zn-69m 1.4E-3 2.7E-l Zn-69 1.5E-3 2 'E-1 Br-83 3.7E-4 7.2E-2 Br-84 3 'E-5 5.8E-3 Rb-89 2.1E-4 4.1E-2 Sr-89 1.4E-4 2.7E-2 Sr-90 7.0E-5 1.4E-2 Sr-91 2.2E-3 4.3E-l Sr-92 1.5E-3 2.9E-l Y-90 7.0E-5 1.4E-2 Y-91m 1.4E-3 2.7E-1 Y-91 7.0E-5 1 ~ 4E-2 Y-92 3.1E-3 6-OE-1 Y-93 2 ~ 3E-3 4.5E-1 Mo-99 2.3E-3 4.5E-1 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 5.2-]
| |
| (sheet 2 of 2)
| |
| Concentration in Release Plant Effluents
| |
| ~Zeoto e ~(ci/ ) ( Ci/a)
| |
| Tc-99m 8.9E-3 1.7 Tc-101 2.0E-5 3.9E-3 I
| |
| Ru-103 3. OE-5 5.8E-3 RQ-105 5.5E-4 1.1E-l Rh-105 1.8E-4 3.5E-2 Te-129m 5.0E-5 9.7E-3 Te-129 3. OE-5 5.8E-3 Te-131m l. OE-4 1.9E-2 Te-131 2. OE-5 3.9E-3 Te-132 1.0E-5 1.9E-3 I-131 6.4E-3 1.2 I-132 3.5E-3 6.8E-1 I-133 1.7E-2 3.3 I-134 1.4E-3 2.7E-1 I-135 7 'E-3 1.5 Cs-134 7.4E-3 1.4 Cs-136 4.7E-3 9.1E-1 Cs-137 1.7E-2 3.3 Cs-138 7.2E-3 1.4 Ba-139 5.3E-4 1.0E-l Ba-140 5.3E-4 1.0E-1 La-140 1.1E-4 2.1E-2 La-141 1.7E-4 3 3E-2 La-142 3.6E-4 7.0E-2 Ce-141 4.0E-5 7. SE-3 Ce-143 3.0E-5 5.8E-3 Pr-143 5.0E-5 9.7E-3 W-187 2.7E-4 4.7E-2 Np-239 7.9E-3 1.5 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 5.2-2 RELEASE RATES AND CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN THE AIRBORNE EFFLUENTS FROM WNP-2 Concentration in Concentration in Release Rate Plant Effluent Release Rate Plant Effluent
| |
| ~Zsota 8 (C') Zsotooe (Ci/v)
| |
| H 3 68 8.3 Sb-124 5. OE-4 6.1E 5 Cr-51 1.3E-2 l. 6E-3 Z-131 4.6E-1 5.6E-2 Mn-54 4. 1E-3 S.OE-4 I-133 1~7 2.1E-1 Fe-59 1. 1E-3 1.4E-4 Xe" 131m 5.0 6.1E-l Co-58 l. 3E-3 1.6E-4 Xe-133 2700 3.3E+2 Co-60 1.3E-2 1. 6E-3 Xe-135m 740 9. 1E+1 Zn-65 2.2E-3 2 'E-4 Xe-135 1100 l. 4E+2 Kr-85m 76 9.3 Xe-138 1400 1.7E+2 Kr-85 270 3.3E+1 Cs-134 4.4E-3 5.4E-4 Kr-87 200 2. 5E+1 Cs-136 3.6E-4 4.4E 5 Kr-88 240 2.9E+1 Cs-137 6.3E-3 7.7E 4 Sr-89 6. 1E-3 7 'E 4 Ba-140 1.1E-2 1.4E-3 Sr-90 2 'E-5 3.4E-6 CG-141 7.6E-4 9.3E-5 Zr-95 5.1E-4 6.2E-5
| |
| | |
| ANNUAL AUERAGE" ATMOSPIIERXCAL DILUTION FACTORS (X/9')
| |
| Direction Bande (mile) fron Source '5 Hl 1.5 Hl 2 ~ 5 Hl 3.5 Hl 4<<S Hl I ~ 5 Hl 15 Hl 25 Hl 35 HT 45 Hl TOTALS ABASE-08 3 '4E-06 8 '4E 07 4 ~ 30E 07 2 ~ 83f 07 2 '7t-Ol l<<OUE-Ol 4 '0E'-08 2 '2E 08 40E 9 '2E-09 4 '7t-06 NNE ? ~ 65f. 06 6 '2t 0'I 3 '4t 07 ?<<3}E-07 67t.-o7 8 ~ 6bf. 08 3 '5E-DB 1 ~ 72E 08 1 ~
| |
| 1 ~ 08E OU OU 7 ~ 59f -09 4 '3t-06 ht 2 }OE"Ob b<<47E 07 2 '0E.-D7 1<<90E-07 1 ~ 3UE-07 7.167.-0 8 2 1 ~ 41E 08 8<<82E 09 6 '8t<<09 3 '9E 06 tNt 2<<04E-06 b<<36E-07 2 '5t-07 1 ~ Ubf Dl 1 ~ 36E<<O I 6 '9t-DU 2<<78E-08 1 ~ 3Ut, 08 8<<bDE-09 6 '3E-09 3 '1E,-06 E 1 9UE-06 5<<}OE 07 2 '9E-O'I 1.75E-O7 l<<27E'-07 6 '8E OU 2<<54E DU 25E'8 7 '9E"09 5.45E-09 3 ~ 17E-06 tSE 3 '3E 06 8.73E-07 4 '3E 07 3 '3E Ol 2 '0t-07 1 <<13t,"0 I 4<<45E 08 2 ~ 20E 08 1 ~ 37E 08 9 ~ SBE D9 5<<<<39E"06 SE 3 '2f.-n6 1 ~ 03f-oe b.505-07 3 ~ 38t Ol 2<<64E-OI 1 ~ 37t-0 I 5 ~ Sof 08 2 '5E-OU 1 ~ 72E<<OU 1<<2}f.-08 6 '4E 06 SSE 3<<C}E-06 9<<bhf"07 5 13t-07 3 ~ 3bf.-o I t 2 ~ 4'I 0 I 1 ~ 29E-0 I 5 '}E. 08 2<<6} E-DB l<<64E-08 1 ~ 16E-OU ST 9DE 06 5 3 l}E 06 8 '3E>>07 4 ~ 49t, 07 2 'UE.-07 2 'At-07 1 ~ }SE.-07 4 '8E'-08 2 '5E>>OB 1 ~ 48E, 08 1 ~ 04E 08 5 ~ 12E 06 2 ~ 3IE" D I 8 '9E-09 '7E-06 SSM SM
| |
| ?.38E-oe 2.13E<<06 1 ~ BSE Ob 6.52E-O7 6 ~ 0}E D7 b.nUE-O7, 3<<55t<<07 3 ~ 31}: 07 2 ~ 7lt. 07 2 ~ 22t. 07 1 84E-07 1 ~ 74E-0'I
| |
| }<<64t~07 l<<36E 07 9 '5E-OU 8 '5t.-oU 7.19f,-oU 3<<79E-OB 3 '2E 2 '4E 08 OA 1 ~ 91E-08 1 ~ 83E-08 l<<4UE-08 1 ~
| |
| 1 ~
| |
| 2}E 08 16E 9<<32E OU OP 8 '7E>>09 6,b6E-O')
| |
| 3 3
| |
| 3
| |
| '}f
| |
| ~
| |
| 06 Oot 06 MS't 1 ~ 3UE-06 3 ~ 81E,-07 2 ~ DUt>>07 1.30E-07 1 <<02t. O'I b<<39E 08 2 '0E-08 1 ~ loE-OU 6 92E-0') 4 '7E-09 2 'Dt.-06 HNH }<<66f"Ob 4 ~ 33E nl 2<<30t. 07 l<<SDE 07 1.}Ot-O7 5 '9E-08 '7E"08 12E-OU T.nlf-n9 4 '1E-09 2 '9E-ne NNll 1 ~
| |
| 2 7SE 06
| |
| '5E Ob 4 ~ 47E 07 7<<l}E 07 2
| |
| 3
| |
| 'bt-O'I
| |
| '26-07
| |
| '},b4E.-DI 1 ~ 12E 0) 2<<b2E 07 1 ~ 84t-07 5 '4t 9 '7E DU DU 2
| |
| 2 '8E"DU 3<<92f-08 1 ~
| |
| 1<<13E-OU 1 ~ 9UE 08 T.oof-n9 l<<25f.-08 4 '7E 8 '2E-09 09 2<<80t. 06 4 '6E-06 TOTALS 3.9SE-nb 1<<OSE-Ob b<<o2t 06 3<<olE db 2 ~ 7}E"ob 1 ~ 41 f-nb 5 69E-07 2 ~ obE-07 1 79E-07 1.26t-n7 6<<45t'. 05 CUH TOTL AUSE-05 5 ~ ODE 05 b<<set-nb S.)3t-ob 6.20}.-05 6.34t-o> 6.39t-n5 6 '2f Db 6 '4E 05 e.4st-o5 b<<45t 05
| |
| | |
| TABLE 5.2-4 CONCENTRATIONS OF IMPORTANT RADIONUCLIDES IN VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA IIIvcr Hatur ut Point of Air at Sedlt<cnt Soll ut Pish ut hrinkin<J Watur Vc<lutution ut Hllk fror< E<J<JU at Hui<L at irrigation raylur p)ats ut outfall 'raylur plots outfall ci<uts at Iilchland 1'aylur Vials ItuarusL Cou 'ruylor Pluts 'ruylor Plots Hucl idu ~pCIQ} )PC~I<<< } j~ik } II<CIA )~<CI kg) )VCI /k<g} )I<CtrlI MI<IlkJ}.. h~iiikE} MWM<<5L II-3 l. It:- I 5. 6V.- I 7. OLIO 2. lYsi 2.1VI3 1.1L-I 6.4811 3.1L'I l 1. iEI I 3.0LI I lie-24 I. 3VI 2 I. 3VI 2 S.SY-5 I'-3'2 2. 4V.-6 1.5L'll . I.SYII Hn-56 5.5LI2 5.5LI2 ~ 3.3V-S Co-60 5.18-6 1.18-4 1.9V.IO l. 18-1 5 'LIO 5.48IO l. 08-7 3. 1V.-2 Kr-87 0 1. 68I 0 0 0 0 Kr-88 0 1.9LI 0 0 0 0 0 Sr 89 1.3V-6 5.08-5 1. 4E-3 0, 2Y I U. 2L'- I 2. 6L'"7 1.2V-2 9.48-4 Sr-90II) 6.58-7 2 3L'-7 7.08-4 IY.-I 4.1L-I 1.38-7 2.0V-4 7.4L-6 2.9L-6 1-131 6.08 5 3 UE-3 I 7Y-1 1.9PIl 1.9YII 4.8V-S '3.7VIO 2.18IO'"' I. SL-I I.28-1 I-IJ2 I.OVII I.OEII 2.6L'-5 1-133 1. 48-2 6.7E-2 5.0EII 5.08II I.J8-4 I. It:IO 3.18-1" 2. 18-2 J-135 2.38tl 2.38 ' S. <JL'-5 Xu-135 0 9.OLIO 0 Xu-134 0 l. 2Lt1 0 0 0 Cs-IJ4 6.9V-5 3.68-5 9.68IO I . 58-2 2.9I'.I3 2.9VI3 6. 18" 5 I.OV-2 2. 6I.'-3 1. 6L'-3 Cs 136 4 '8-5 1.88I 3 I.OL'I3 J.<JL-5 CS-137 1.68-4 5. 2t'-5 1.48I2 I 68-1
| |
| ~ 6.6YI 3 6.68I3 I. 4Y-4 l. SV-2 3.88-3 2.7L 3. OI' Cs-138 2 UI'I3 2.8I;I '3 6.1I:- 5 Uu-I40 4.98-6 9 4L-5 6.7L 4 4.18-1 4.18-1 2, OY.-6 1,3V-2 (aI This wou1d&<u a factor of 1.2 LI<<<us hlqhur if <JuaLs'<l I k is uonsu<<<ud.
| |
| Amendment 3 January l979~
| |
| ~
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 5.2-5 t
| |
| ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR BIOTA DOSE ESTIMATES
| |
| ."-ish, Clam. Crustacea 0 -
| |
| Zn equ'librium with 10% plant e<< luent 0- Bf<<ect'e radius <<2 cm o BioaccumuLation factors listed in Appendix I"
| |
| Ãaa k-at Spends 33% of t~~ e in LOS plant ef<<luent; 33% in riverbank den:
| |
| 33% an lard B ect've radius ~ 5 cm Body mass ~ 1 kg Cansumes 100 g/day aquatic vegetation growing in LOS plant ei luent Raa"aaa Spends 25% o<< twe on shoreline washed with 10% plant e<<<<luent act've radius ~ 14 cm Body mass ~ ' kg Consumes 20 g/day <<ish 1'ving in LOS dlant effluent (LO'h of total d'et). (.he other 90% of his diet 's assumed to be free of rac'o-nucl'des of NHP-2 ar'gin.)
| |
| Ccat Spends 50% of time float'ng in,10% plan" ef<<iten" and 508 of time on shoreline washed wi>D i0% plant ef<<'uent B fact've rad'us ~ 5 cm Body mass << 1 kg Consumes 100 g/day acuat'c vegetat'on 1'v'ng in 10% plant e<<f'nt Heron o Spends 33% of time standing in 10% plant ef luent) 33% an r'ver-bank washed with 10% plant effluent o Bf ective rad'us ~ 11 cm o Body mass ~ 4.6 kg o Consumes 600 g/day f'sh 1'v'ng in 10% plant ef Luent Saands 50% of time f'aat'ng in 10% plant ef<<luenc and 501 af time on shoreline washed with 10% plane, ef<<luent 0 B<<ective radius ~ 10 cm 0 Body mass. ~ 3 kg o Consumes 500 g/day af gra'n Rc"arnaL dose to musk"at, coot and heron frcm gaseaus ef<<luents are received at shoreline 3.5 mi MZ of the cantainment building.
| |
| External dose to racoon-<<ram gaseous ef<<luents are received at shoreline (253) and at, a Location 0.5 mi SZ (75%) .
| |
| Amendment 3 January 1979
| |
| | |
| PPiVP-2 ER TABLE 5.2-6 ASSUi41PTIONS USED EN ESTIi<4&TENG DOSES FROM THE LiQUZD PATHNAY Drinkinc water Liquid effluent diluted by annual average river flow (120,000 cfs) water 24 hours delay between release of radionuclides and consumption of (plus holdup Ln water plant)
| |
| Fractions of radionuclides passing hrough ~ster plant were those given Ln
| |
| .able 5.2-11 Consumption rate of 2.0 I/day (730 Z/yr) for ruiximum individual and 1.2 1/day (440 1/yr) for the average Lndividual.
| |
| Total population consuming drinking water downstream frcm the plant is approxima ely 75,000 Fish Pish caught Ln waters containing plant effluent diluted by a factor of 0.1 for maximum individual and by annual average river flow for population average.
| |
| Ono-day delay between harvest o. fish and consumpt<on for population and 1 hour for maximum individual.
| |
| Consumption rate of 40 kg/yr for maximum individual3 and 1.4 x 10" kg/yr (edible weight) for population living Ln the 50-mile radius of the plant. (The approxL-ate edible weLght of sportfish harves ed f"om the river between Ringold and Soardman.(5))
| |
| Ho losses Ln preparation of fish.
| |
| RECREATIOXAL ACTIVITIES Maximum Individual
| |
| ~ Recreation in or near waters containing 10% effluent.
| |
| : 0. 1 hou" delay between re)ease and location of shoreline actLvity, swL<x<<lng and boating.
| |
| 500 hrs/yr shoreline activLties.
| |
| 100 hrs/yr swirming (complete L~erslon) 100 hrs/yr boating or water skiing (surface)
| |
| Averace Individual Members of the Population Recreation Ln or near waters containing plant effluent fully diluted Ln the annual verage iv 4 hours delay between release g>~ -adionuclides and location of recrea ion.
| |
| 17 hrs/yr shoreline activities<
| |
| 10 hrs/yr swimming (complete immersion) 5 hrs/yr boating and water skiing (surface)
| |
| Total population using Colu.J>La River downstream rcm the plant for recreation Ls approximately 193,000.(c)
| |
| Irri ated Food Products
| |
| ~ Irri,gation water contains effluent nuclides diluted with annual average rives lowe
| |
| ~ Radionuclide buildup period Ln soil Ls 30 years.
| |
| ~ 25% of radionuclide which falls out Ls retaLned cn crops.
| |
| ~ All radioiodine released Ls Ln inorganic !orm. is
| |
| ~ Environmental half-life of deposition on plants 14 days.
| |
| ~ Holdups, Individual Consumptions, Ir igation Rates, Yields, and Crowing Periods are listed in Table 5.2-12
| |
| ~ Average ember of population Ls assumed to eat 1/2 of consumptions listed Ln Table 5.2-12
| |
| ~ Population consuming irrigated foods assumed to be 10,000.
| |
| t<ime to southwest Benton County was ignored. The majority (ove 50%) of the exposed populatLon resides Ln the vicini.ty of the Tr'-CitLes, (Pasco, Kennewick, and R<chland).
| |
| (b) Receptor assumed 3, t above Lnfinite plane. Resulthag dose decreased by factor of 0.2 to account for finite wLdth of shoreline.
| |
| (c) The population within 50 miles of the s< e in the sectcrs between the H:<E and the SW directions, inclusive, are the persons who travel to the Columbia River downstream of the plant .'or heir aquatic,recreation. This popuLation Ls estimated to otal 192,710 persons in 2020.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 5. 2-7 ASSUMPTIONS USED IN ESTIMATING DOSES FROM THE GASEOUS PATHWAY For external beta dose 2n geometry used.
| |
| For external gamma dose 2m geometry used.
| |
| Ground level release with wake correction.
| |
| 2020 population distribution.
| |
| | |
| TABLE 5.2-8 ANNUAL DOSE RATES TO BIOTA ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE WNP-2 NUCLEAR PLANT (mrad/ r)
| |
| Air Water Shoreline, or Contaminated Or anism Submersion Immersion Bottom Sediment Ground Internal Total Fish 2.0E-4 1.3E+1 1.3E+1 Clam 2.0E-4 2.6E-2 2.1E+2 2.1E+2 Crustacean 2.0E-4 2.6E-2 2.1E+2 2.1E+2 Muskrat 2. 3E-1 6.6E-5 8.5E-3 7.9E-3 7.1E+1 7.1E+1 Raccoon 3.9E+0 6.5E-3 1.4E-1 1.4E+0 4.9E+0 Coot 3. 3E-1 5. OE-5 1.3E-2 6.9E+1 6.9E+1 Heron 3. 3E-1 3.3E-5 8.5E-3 1.4E+2 1.4E+2 Goose 3. 3E-1 5.0E-5 1.3E-2 1.5E-4 2.9E-l Deer 9 'E-1 4.5E-2 2.7E-4 8.5E-1 Cattle 1. 6E-1 7.8E-3 2. 7E-4 1.5E-l
| |
| | |
| TABLE 5.2-9 ESTIMATED ANNUAL DOSES TO AN INDIVIDUAL FROM THE LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENTS OF WNP-2 Dilution Annual Doses (mrcm) to an Adult Annual Factor Total Pathwa E~xo"oro Location ~or /0 Shin ~hod Gl-l.l< T~h roid hono LIQUID Drinking Water 730 i Richland 1/20,000 1.78-5 1.18-5 9.0E-5 6.78-6 Fish 40 kg Hear Outfall 1/10 2. 2 2. 08-1 2 'E-1 1.6 Water Recreation (a) Hear Outfall 1/10 1.18-1 9.38-2 (9.38-2) (9.38-2) (9.3E-2)
| |
| Irrigated Food Products:
| |
| Produce Eggs (b)
| |
| (b)
| |
| Riverview Riverview Ar<<a 1/20,000 2.78-5 1.18-5 6.S8-5 2 '8-5 Area 1/20,000 5.4E-7 4.1E-7 2.78-6 5. 48-7 Hi lk (b) Riverview Area 1/20,000 2.4E-S 5.0E-6 1.68-4 1.98-5 Heat (b) Riverview Area 1/20 000 F 7.68-6 1.68-6 4.9E-6 6.38-6 Ground Contamination 4,400 h Riverview Area 1/20,000 2.28-4 1.98-4 (1.98-4) (1.98-4) (1.98"4)
| |
| AIR ATr Submersion 8,766 h3 Taylor Flat 2.6xlO 2.88-1 1.48-1 (1.48-1) (1.48-1) (1.48-1)
| |
| Inhalation/Trans- 7,300 m Taylor Flat 2.6xlO 8.18-4 8.68-4 7.88-2 2.3E-4 portation Food Products:
| |
| Produce (b) Taylor Flat 2.6xlO 5.68-3 5.38-3 6.08-1 1.78-3 Eggs (b) Taylor Flat 2.6xlO 7 5.98"5 5.28-5 8.9$ dt 2.18-5 Hi,lk (cow) (b) Taylor Flat 2.6xlO 3.08-3 2.18"3 1.2 2.68-3 Heat (b) Taylor Flat 2.6x10 2.78-4 2.3E-4 1.6E-2 5.68-5 Ground Contamination 4,400 h Taylor Flat 2.6xlO 4.2E-3 3.4E-3 (3.48"3) (3.48-3) (3.4E-3) a (b) See Table 5.2-12 for consumption rates for farm products.
| |
| (c) Parentheses around a number indicate that the radiation dose to an internal organ is due to an external source and is estimated to he equal to the external total-body dose.
| |
| (d) This would be a factor of 1.2 times higher if goats'ilk is consumed.
| |
| Amendment 3 January 1979
| |
| | |
| TABLE 5.2-10 ESTIMATED ANNUAL DOSES TO AN INDIVIDUALFROM THE LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENTS OF WNP-2, WNP-1 AND WNP-4 Annual Doses (mrem) to an Adult Annual Tota1 PnkkwnZ E~xo nzo Inocatlon Skin SodZ GZ-LLZ T~k zoid Spun I IQUID Drinking Mater 730 l Richland F 08-3 1.88-3 1.98-3 3.18-1 6.78-6 Fish 40 kg Hear Outfall 2.3 2.6 1.6 c l(ater Recreation (a) Hear Outfall 1.1E-l 9.38-2 (9.38-2) (9.38-2) (9 38 2)
| |
| Irrigated Food Products: 1.3E-3 2.58-5 Produce (b) Riverview Area 1.38-3 1.3E-3 Eggs (b) Riverview Area 6.98-5 6.98-5 6-98"5 5.48-7 Hi 1k (b) R(verview brea 6.68-4 6.58-4 8.18"4 1.98-5 Heat (b) Riverview brea 2 '8-4 2.28-4 2.38-4 6.38-6 Ground Contamination 4,400 h Riverview brea 2.28-4 1.98 (1.9E-4) (1.98-4) (1.9E-4)
| |
| AIR hir Submersion 8,766 h3 Taylor Flat 6.98-1 1. 78-1 (1. 78" 1) (1. 78" 1) (l. 7E-1)
| |
| Inhalation/Trans- 7,300 m Taylor Flat 4 '8-3 4.58-3 9.58-2 2 68-4 portation Food Products:
| |
| Produce (b) Taylor Flat 3.48-2 3.38-2 7.48-1 2.08-3 Eggs (b) Taylor Flat 3.28-4 3.18-4 1.1(df '2.5E-S Hilk (cow) (b) Taylor Flat 9.1E-3 En08-3 1~4 3.18-3 Meat (b) Taylor Flat 1.68-3 1.58-3 2.18-2 6.38"5 Ground Contamination 4,400 h Taylor Glat 5.38-3 4.18-3 (4.1F.-3) (4.18-3) (4.18-3)
| |
| See Ta e 5.2-6 for exposure rates for water recreation.
| |
| (b) See Table 5.2-12 for consumption rates for-farm products.
| |
| (c) Parentheses around a number indicate that the radiation dose to an internal organ is due to an external source and is estimated to be equal to tlte external total-body dose.
| |
| (d) This would be a factor of 1.2 times higher if goats'ilk is consumed.
| |
| Amendment 3 January 1979
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 5. 2-11 FRACTION OF RADIONUCLIDE PASSING THROUGH WATER TREATMENT PLANTS~4)
| |
| Element Fraction Element Fraction H 1.0 Mo 0.9 0.9 Tc 0.7 0.4 0.5 Cr 0.9 0.5 Mn 0.5 Te 0.8 Fe 0.2 0.8 Co 0.2 Cs 0.9 0.2 Ba 0.4 CQ 0.6 La 0.2 Zn 0.4 Ce 0.2 Br 0.8 Pr 0.2 0.9 W 0.9 Sr 0.2 Np 0.7 0.2
| |
| | |
| TABLE 5.2-12 ASSUMPTIONS FOR ESTIMATING DOSES FROM CROPS AND ANIMAL FODDER SUBJECT TO DEPOSITION OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS RELEASED BY THE PLANT Irrigation (b) Atomspheric Growing Consumption Ra/e- Dilutjon Yielg Period Pood T ~es 11oldup
| |
| ~t/ . ~/> ~f/ / (s/m ) ~(k /m ) ~(da )
| |
| Produce /
| |
| Leafy Vegetables 1 30 200 2.6xlO 1.5 70 Beans,'eas, Asparagus 1 30 160 2.6xl0-7 0.4 70 Potatoes 10 110 180 2.6xlO 5 100 Other Root Vegetables 1 72 150 2.6xlO 5 70
| |
| -
| |
| Berries 1 30 180 2.6xlO 2.7 60 Helons (water) 1 40 180 2.6xlO 1.4 100 Orchard Fruit 1 265 180( )
| |
| 2.6xlO 2.1 90 Nheat 10 80 2.6xlO 0.72 70 Other Grain (sweet Corn) 1 8.3 150 2.6xlo 1.4 100 Eggs .'0 150 2.6xlo 0. 66 130 Milk 274 200 2.6xlO 1.3 30 Meat Beef 15 40 160 2.6xlO 7 2.0 130 Pork 15 40 150 2.6xlO 0.69 130 Poultry 2 18 140 2.6xlO 0.66 130 (a) Consumptions are for maximum individual. Average population member is assumed to eat one-half of those quantities.
| |
| (b) Typical irrigation rates for the region.
| |
| (c) No irrigation of wheat.
| |
| Amendment 3 January, 1979
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 5.2-13 CUMULATIVE POPULAT ION I ANNUAL POPULATION DOSE, FROM SUBMERSION IN AIR CONTAINING RADIONUCLIDES FROM THE WNP-2 AND COMBINED RELEASES OF WNP-2 AND WNP-1 AND -4~
| |
| Cumulative Annual Cumulative Population Dose Annual Average Radius Population (man-rem) Dose (mrem)
| |
| (miles) (2020) WNP-2 Combe.ned WNP-2 Co z.ned 0
| |
| 0 5 '30 0.0086 0.010 0.066 0.078 10 12,650 0.44 0.56 0.035 0.045 20 108,060 1.3 1.8 0.012 0.016 30 157,760 1.5 2.1 0.0093 0.013 40 201,270 1.5 2.1 0.0075 0.010 50 267,790 1.6 2.2 0.0058 0.0081 (a) Population estimates in Section 2. 1 were revised by Amendment No. 5.
| |
| These revisions reflect a projection of 380,000 people in the year 2020 living within 50 miles. However, because all the increases are beyond 10 miles, the cumulative population dose is not expected to increase significantly and is, therefore, not recalculated. See also note on P.5.2-10.
| |
| Amendment 5 July 1981
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 5.2-14 ANNUAL DOSES RECEIVED VIA MAJOR PATHWAYS FOR WNP-2 AND FOR WNP-2, WNP-1 AND -4'COMBINED Annual Dose (mrem)
| |
| Appendix I.,
| |
| WNP-2 WNP-1 & -4 Combined Limits er Reactor AIR PATHWAY Air Submersion (a)
| |
| Total Body 0.47 0.38 0. 85 5 Skin 0.84 0.60 1.4 15 Infant s Thyroid 9.1 1.8 15 Nearest Resident Thyroid 2.0 0.37 2.4 15 Total Body 0.15 6-8E-2 0.22 10 LIQUID PATHWAY Drinking Water Total Body 1.7E-5 1.8E-3 1.8E-3 3 Fish Consumption Total Body 2.2 6.2E-2 2.3 3 Bone 1.6 4.0E-8 1.6 10 Nearest Resident (d)
| |
| Total Body 0.10 2.9E-2 '0. 13 3 All Others <0.10 <3.0E-3 "0. 1 10 AIR DOSE (mrad/ r)
| |
| Gamma Air Dose 2.9 10 Beta Air Dose 1~9 20 (a) Located 3.5 miles ESE of WNP-2.
| |
| (b) Milk and inhalation at nearest residence.
| |
| (c) Inhalation, air submersion, ingestion of farm 'products, contaminated gZ'ound.
| |
| (d) Swimming, boating, shoreline, ground contamination, ingestion of farm products.
| |
| (e) At a location 0.5 miles southeast of the plant.
| |
| Amendment 3 January 1979
| |
| | |
| TABLE 5.2-15 ESTIMATED ANNUAL POPULATION DOSES ATTRIBUTABLE AT WNP-2 AND COMBINED RADIONUCLIDE RELEASES OF WNP-l, WNP-2 AND WNP-4 ( )
| |
| Total Body Dose Man-Rem Pathwa WNP-2 Combined Remarks AIR Submersion in Cloud 1.6 2.1 No credit taken for shielding.
| |
| Direct Radiation Inhalation/Transpiration 2.3E-2 1.0E-1 Farm Products 6.9E-2 2.7E-l WATER Fish Consumption 3.9E-4 4.3E-4 Complete mixing in river was assumed.
| |
| Drinking Water 7.7E-4 8.0E-2 Complete mixing in river was assumed.
| |
| Water Recreation 3.0E-4 3.0E-4 Complete mixing in river was assumed.
| |
| Irrigated Farm Products 1.8E-4 8.0E-3 TRANSPORTATION OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS 15 From reference 8.
| |
| (a) See notes on Page 5.2-10 and Table 5.2-13 Amendment 5 July 1981
| |
| | |
| Gaseous Effluents Liquid Effluents C
| |
| .O C
| |
| Consumption Direct Seafood Irradiation Consumption
| |
| (<'')t 4P A~
| |
| Consumption
| |
| (
| |
| /y ))r 4'ear.
| |
| Immersion ~oo Immersion Q>'
| |
| - c (
| |
| I I
| |
| Ingestion WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM EXPOSURE PATHWAYS FOR ORGANI~
| |
| WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO ~ 2 OTHER THAN MAN Enviroranental Report FIG. 5.2-1
| |
| | |
| GASEOUS EFFLUENTS NUCI.EAR FACILITY LIQUIO V EFFLUENTS C C~
| |
| r Direct Iirattiation
| |
| ~ ti I/.
| |
| FUEL TRANSPORT Shoreline p ri/yQ,,ptas ~ 0 os q
| |
| , ~,.~ JAN,~ e> re
| |
| ~ ostrre ep osrrre Water ]
| |
| co 07 o
| |
| C o'rr/
| |
| 4~
| |
| /c 0
| |
| O~
| |
| mers ~ori an~
| |
| ece CI 0)
| |
| C O
| |
| 0' gl WASHINGTON PUBLIC POW~ SUPPLY SYST~ EXPOSURE PATHP/AYS TO MAN NPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO . 2 Envi onmental Repor" PIG. 5.2-2
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 5.3 EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE DISCHARGES 5.3.1 -
| |
| Li uid Dischar es The expected impacts of chemical and biocide discharges were presented in the AEC Final Environmental Statement (December 1972) 'as prepared at the construction permit, stage. The basic data and conclusions presented in that statement have not changed and are included herein by reference. However, supplemental discussion follows.
| |
| WNP-2liquid effluent discharges will comply with the condi-tions of the Site Certification Agreement Between the State of Washington and the Washington Public Power Supply System for Hanford No. 2 (May 17, 1972) as amended (September 25, 1975) . This incorporates a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Permit (in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 90.48 RCN as amended and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972, Public Law 92-500) and applicable State of Washington Water Quality Criteria or Standards contained in Washington Administrative Code 173-'201.
| |
| The State criteria or standards appear in Chapter 12. Since the construction permit, application, the requirement that total dissolved gas not exceed 110% of saturation has been added. Nitrogen and oxygen are considered the gases of potential biological concern. The equilibrium concentrations of these gases in water, are controlled by the temperature and the dissolved gas concentration in blowdown effluents will comply with the supersaturation limitation. will Even though the concentration of gases in the blowdown be subsaturated with respect to the river at the discharge point, the State dissolved oxygen stand-ard will be met within a few feet of the discharge due to rapid dilution with the river water which normally has an oxygen content ranging from 9.5 to 14.0 mg/R.
| |
| The NPDES permit. (No. WA-002515-1) is contained in Appendix IV wherein discharge and monitoring conditions are given.
| |
| Table 5.3.1 lists the maximum potential increase of chemical concentrations of the Columbia River water which could result from the WNP-2 discharges. The basic information is not changed from that reported at the construction permit stage, but is presented in a format that more directly defines the impact on river concentrations. The maximum potential change was computed assuming a maximum chemical waste stream of 150 gpm and a maximum blowdown of 6,500 gpm, and complete mixing with the minimum regulated Columbia River flow of 36,000 cfs. The table indicates that the increases in river concentrations are very small in comparison to ambient concentrations.
| |
| 5.3-1 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Storm water, roof drains, and makeup demineralizer backwash waters will be collected in a separate sewer system and forwarded to an evaporation/leach area noted in Sections 3.7.2 and 3.7.3.. No rad-waste, chemical wastes, or sanitary wastes, will enter this system.
| |
| Trash and solid nonradioactive wastes generated by the plant will be disposed of offsite by an independent contractor.
| |
| The environmental concentrations and effects of cooling tower drift are discussed in Section 5.1.4.
| |
| : 5. 3-2 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 5.3-1 MAXIMUM POTENTIAL CHANGE IN COLUMBIA RIVER WATER QUALITY RESULTING FROM WNP-2 CHEMICAL DISCHARGES
| |
| , Maximum Maximum Concentrations Concentrations in River Change Upstream in River of WNP-2
| |
| ++
| |
| Calcium, ppm Ca 0. 066 32
| |
| ++
| |
| Magnesium, ppm Mg 0. 014 Sodium, ppm Na 0. Ol Bicarbonate, ppm HCO3 0. 038 80 Sulfate, ppm S04 0. 171 28 Chloride, ppm Cl 0. 005 2.6 Nitrate ppm N03 0.0012 0. 62 Phosphate, ppm P04 0.003 0.13 Total Hardness, ppm CaCO3 0.222 88 Total Alkalinity, ppm CaC03 0.062 76 Silica, ppm Si02 0.019 9 Dissolved Solids, ppm 0.247 115
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL 5.4 EFFECTS'F SANITARY WASTE DISCHARGES The amount of sanitary wastes processed at the central sanitary waste treatment facility is small relative to the capacity of the soil to ac-commodate these wastes. 'uring peak loading an average of 100 gpm will be percolated to the soil while long term operation will result in 25 gpm or less. The treatment system is efficient at removing BOD and sol-ids. Approximately 45 feet of soils will provide disinfection of resi-dual bacteria before the liquids enter the unconfined groundwater. Nu-trients (principally nitrogen and phosphorus) which may eventually reach the Columbia River (three miles east) will have no measurable effect on water quality or biota. The nearest water supply wells are 3000 feet from the percolation beds. Because of the limited zone of potential contamination and the limited use of groundwater at the site, the opera-tion of the treatment facility will have no measurable effect on ground-water resources. There is no discharge to surface waters.
| |
| The ponds may attract waterfowl, however, they will not be adversely affected; the lagoons wi ll not receive wastes which present a toxicity problem. The facility will be fenced to preclude entry by deer which could damage the pond liner with hooves. During normal operation, the aerobic process will not be a source of odors.
| |
| In summary, the waste treatement system, utilizing oxidation and photo-synthesis, will have no significant or lasting environmental effect.
| |
| The sanitary waste treatment facility was designed according to criteria of the State of Washington Department of Ecology and its construction was subject to approval by the State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council.
| |
| 5.4-1 Amendment 5 July 1981
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 5.5 EFFECTS OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM Effects of operating and maintaining the transmission lines are expected to be as described in the FES for the construc-tion permit stage. However, the li. J. Ashe substation which is being constructed by the Bonneville Power Administration to handle the WNP-2 5.00 KV transmission line and 230 KV start-up line has not been described and assessed previously.
| |
| The Ashe substation is located about 1/2 mile due north of WNP-2. The substation requires about 37 acres of land with a 2000-ft long access road requiring about 1 acre. The Ashe substation is scheduled to be completed just prior to the startup of WNP-2. NEPA requirements for the construction and operation of the Ashe substation and transmission lines serving WNP-2 are being addressed by the Bonneville Power Administration.(1) 5.5-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 5.6 OTHER EFFECTS All known effects of plant operation except noise are dis-cussed in other sections. The effects of noise caused by the operation NNP-2 are expected to be as described in the FES for the construction permit stage.
| |
| : 5. 6-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 5.7 RESOURCES COMMITTED The estimated irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources due to the operation of WNP-w have not changed sig-nificantly since evaluated in the AEC Final Environmental Statement (December 1972) except as noted below in an updated discussion of fuel utilization.
| |
| 5.7.1 Uranium Resources Operation of WNP-2 will require the initial loading of 139 metric tons (MT) of uranium ag3granium dioxide with and average isotopic enrichment of 1.87% U. This initial loading required 605 short tons of U30 of natural isotopic composition. This corresponds to obtaining 288,300 short tons of ore containing 0.21% U 08, which is a very small fraction of the estimated domestic uranium ore reserves.
| |
| The enrichment of uranium for the initial loading of WNP-2 required about. 289 MT separative work units which is 1.8% of the annual separative work capacity of the three DOE gaseous diffusion plants if fully loaded.
| |
| DOE had indicated it may be necessary to increase the oper-tional tails assay in the future.
| |
| Fuel requirements for continued operation of WNP-2 will depend on the fuel management practices adopted and the use made of the plant to meet. power requirements. Under equilibrium conditions, and an average output from the plant of 711 MWe, the plant to 2.71%
| |
| yjll require about 31 MT/year of uranium enriched U; this corresponds to the utilization of 220 short tons of natural U 0 and 88 MT separative work units annually. This would rlq5ire 22 MWe of power, which would be 2.8% of the average power produced by WNP-2.
| |
| lf the plutonium generated content of the fuel can be in WNP-2 is recycled, the 235 U lowered to about 2.4%. Under these conditions annual requirements for natural uranium would decrease by 14%, and for separative work would be decreased by 19%.
| |
| : 5. 7-1 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 5.8 DECOMMISSIONING AND DISMANTLING The necessity for complete dismantling of the reactor complex and return of the site to its former appearance may be both unnecessary and impractical.
| |
| The site selection process for these projects has a long, continuous history which dates back to January 1943 when the Manhattan District of the Corps of Engineers selected the Hanford area for nuclear development. Among considerations in the selection of Hanford were the isolation of the area; the number of residents to be displaced; the general nature of the area; and abundant sources of electric energy and cool-ing water.
| |
| In considering the future following the useful life of WNP-2, the site within the Hanford Reservation originally selected for its isolation, ecological simplicity and abundant cooling water coupled with its historical "reinforcement" and connec-tions to important transmission networks, will become even more viable than it is today. Therefore, it would likely be a logical site for the installation of future power stations, whether nuclear or fossil, a site too valuable to abandon..
| |
| 5.8.1 Sco e of Dismantlin As a possibility it might be considered desirable to:
| |
| : a. Remove the structural steel framing and metal siding of the turbine-generator building, salvage the crane and all equipment, leave the nonremov-able parts of the turbine-generator foundation and block all entrances.
| |
| : b. Salvage the equipment, as practicable in the general services building, raze the structural walls and block the entrances. The disposition of other auxiliary structures will depend on future use of the site.
| |
| : c. Remove all fuel, control rods and accessories in the containment and fuel storage area, and salvage the cranes and other equipment. For these build-ings, detailed plans will have to be established immediately preceding the decommissioning to allow maximum reuse of site land areas while eliminating any radioactive hazard. The degree of building demolition, the extent of practicable decontamina-tion, the possible reuse of certain equipment or structures, and the subsequent use to be made of the site must be evaluated in establishing these plans.
| |
| 5.8-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER In the above operations, equipment would be decontaminated where necessary and practicable or transported with suitable precautions.
| |
| 5.8.2 Im act on the Environment Dismantling the plants would have many of the same impacts on the environment as the original site preparation and station construction. Cars, trucks and rail traffic will increase, as would the noise level. Some land would have to be used for laydown area.
| |
| 5.8.3 Radiolo ical Im act on the Environment The dismantling of the reactor buildings would have radio-logical impact characteristic of transporting irradiated fuel and radioactive wastes from the site. After dismantling is complete, however, it is expected that the proposed action would have no further significant radiological impact on the environment.
| |
| 5.8.4 Dismantlin Plan An overall work plan, including cost estimates, may be prepared near the end of the reactor's useful life. The dismantling operations would be conducted in accordance with detailed pro-cedures, specifications and schedules. The specifications would define the scope, methods and sequence of accomplishing major tasks. When required to supplement the specifications, detailed work procedures would be developed to meet the exist-ing field conditions, state-of-the-art technology and shipping
| |
| ,, and burial ground requirements. All procedures would be reviewed ~ith NRC.
| |
| All spent fuel will be withdrawn and transported to a licensed nuclear fuel processing plant. Steam generators and other components likely to be contaminated by "detectable radio-activity" would be decontaminated, cut if necessary, or shipped whole with protective coverings. The cutting of radioactive components would be done within containment and with monitoring. Immediate work areas would be enclosed within a contamination control envelope to prevent release of activity to the environment.
| |
| Tanks, machines and other components capable of being decon-taminated would be so treated and shipped to salvage dealers.
| |
| Solid wastes will be properly packaged in approved containers which will be sealed and thoroughly surveyed for external contamination before they are removed.
| |
| 5.8-2
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The subgrade levels of all buildings would be decontaminated and sealed. Provisions would be made so that any leakage of groundwater can be detected.
| |
| 5.8.5 S stems To Be Utilized Durin Dismantlin Typical plant systems which would likely need to be kept activated during dismantling are: demineralizer, gaseous waste disposal, fuel element storage well system, ventila-tion, air conditioning and heating, service water, emergency electrical, service air and plant communication systems, as well as radwaste systems.
| |
| 5.8.6 Pre arator Work Prior to dismantling, certain preparatory work would be ini-tiated. This includes:
| |
| : a. preparation of detailed plans and accumulation of tools and equipment,
| |
| : b. selection and qualification (if required) of neces-sary personnel,
| |
| : c. maintaining security precautions to keep out unauthorized personnel,
| |
| : d. construction of an enlarged change room and personnel decontamination area,
| |
| : e. space for storage areas for contaminated and uncon-taminated wastes,
| |
| : f. establishing personnel and area radioactivity monitoring procedure for the additional personnel and areas involved.
| |
| 5.8.7 Post-Dismantlin Surve After program completion, but prior to any backfitting opera-tions, a thorough radiation survey of the plant site would
| |
| ~
| |
| be performed to verify that any detectable radioactivity does not represent a source of contamination and is within estab-lished regulatory limits.
| |
| 5.8.8 Routine Ins ection and Maintenance After completion of the dimantling or securing of the reactor building, it would be inspected at appropriate intervals to insure that the secured building remains sealed. Minimal maintenance is expected.
| |
| 5.8-3
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 5.8.9 ''Co's'ts''of 'Di'sman'tlin'an'd Decommissionin Preliminary estimates of costs to decommission WNP-2 in 1979 dollars and at 1979 costs are given in Table 5.8-1.
| |
| Cost estimates are for entombment and dismantling although the existence of the plant on the ERDA Hanford Reservation may result in other options.
| |
| 5,. 8-4
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 5.8-1 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF DI'SNANTL'ING 'AND DECOMMISSIONING COSTS 7 Do ars and Costs Entombment Dismantlin Program Scope 270,000 $ 270,000 Licensing Activity 510,000 499,000 Facility Preparation 420,000 429,000 Equipment Removal 2,700,000 8,300,000 Building Removal 5, 500, 000 Seal Bio. Shield 460',000 Shipping, Disposal, Burial 1,100,000 10,009,000 Radiation Protection Equipment and Grounds Improvement 210,000 349,000 Fee (7%) 400,000 1,800,000 Contingency (25%) 1,500,000 6, 909,000 TOTAL $ 7,570,000 $ 34,020,000
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER CHAPTER 6 EFFLUENT AND ENYIRONMENTAI MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 6.1 PREOPERAT IONAL ENY IRONMENTAL PROGRAM 6.1.1 Surface Water 6.1.1.1 Ph sical and Chemical Parameters Previous Studies. Numerous studies have been conducted for approximately 35 years in connection with the Hanford Project activities concerning the physi-cal and chemical characteristics of the Columbia River in the vicinity of WNP-2 and WNP-1/4. These studies have included both general observations and detailed analyses of the effects on the river of effluents from the plutonium production reactors. These reports, which pere reviewed, evaluated, and sum-marized by Becker and Waddel(1) and Neitzel(2), provide an accurate and comprehensi ve hi s tori cal pi cture of the ri ver.
| |
| Measurements b Others. Stage and discharge of the Columbia River are mea-sured continuous y at the U.S. Geological Survey gygjng station below Priest Rapids Dam, 45 miles upstream of the project site.(~) The USGS also rou-tinely monitors river temperatures and water chemistry at the Vernita bridge six miles below the dam and at the intake of the City of Richland water supply treatment plant about 11 miles downstream of the project site. Samples for chemical analyses of the Columbia River have been taken at Priest Rapids Dam, Yernita, the 300 Area, and Richland by Battelle-Northwest and the Hanford En-.
| |
| vironmental Health Foundatign under a contract with the Energy Research and Devel opment Admi nistrati on. (4)
| |
| Measurements b A licant. Dye dispersion studies and velocity measurements have been performed by the Supply System to'determine hydraulic character-istics of the Columbia River in the vicinity of the project site. Four dye releases were made on February 26, 1972, at RM 351.75 in 5 to 7 ft of water off the wept bank of the river, the location of the cooling tower blowdown discharge.(5) River flows were low during the releases and ranged from 36,000 to 50,000 cfs. The studies showed that complete vertical mixing occurs rapidly at this location, and that dye releases made from the river bottom mix more rapidly than releases from mid-depth and the surface. For all releases, complete vertical mixing occurred within 250 ft downstream of the release point. Velocities r anging from 2.5 to 3.3 fps were measured at the water sur-face during these tests.
| |
| 6.1-1 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER River velocities were also measured by the Supply System on March 14, 1974, at four locations and three depths at each location at a river transect just up-stream of the WNP-2 intake.'l6'> Three of these locations were in the right (west and main) channel, and the fourth location was in the middle of the left (east and secondary) channel. The river flow at the time of the measurements was about 130,000 cfs, and measurements were made between 3.3 ft and 19.7 ft from the water surface in the right channel and between 3.3 ft and 13.1 the left channel. The velocities near the water surface ranged from 4.2 to ft in 4.6 fps in the right channel and were 0.8 fps in the left channel.
| |
| Velocities in the vicinity of the WNP-2 discharge were also measured in December 1979 when the river flow was about 135,000 cfs and the depth was about 20 ft. Ve]ocities varied from 3 1/2 fps near the bottom to 7 fps near the surf ace. (1<<~
| |
| Measurements of suspended sediment concentrations and turbidity were performed at various locations upstream and downstream from the outfall structures dur-ing excavtign of the river bed and installation of the intake and outfall structures.(>) The purpose of these measurements was to assure that the construction activities required to install the intake and outfall minimized scour, erosion, runoff and turbidity. The measurements were conducted daily during excavation activities in the river. Sediment concentrations were mea-sured by a conventional suspended sediment sampler.
| |
| A low flow test of the Columbia River on April 10, 1976 controlled the flow to 36,000 cfs for the purpose of verifying river surface elevations. It was con-cluded that the water surface is about 1.3 ft lower than was indicated by pre-vious data. Subsequently, river bottom elevations in the vicinity of the WNP-2 discharge were surveyed by the Supply System to obtain more accurate flow depths than were available from previous surveys by others.
| |
| Modelin of Blowdown Plume Tem eratures. A mathematical model was used to estimate the hydrodynamic and water temperature regime of the cooling tower blowdown plume in $ hp Columbia River under different blowdown and river dis-char ge conditions.(81 The model was selected on the basis of its applica-bility to thermal plume behavior in general and observed conditions in the Columbia River in particular.
| |
| 6.1-2 Amendment 4 ~
| |
| October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The basic equations available for the computation of thermal plumes are the equations of state, continuity, energy, and momentum. However, these equations are extremely difficult to solve in their more general, nonsteady and three-dimensional formulations. Various assumptions are therefore necessary to simplify the equations to develop practical numerical solutions. Simplifications may involve the assump-tion of steady-state, reduction of a three-dimensional pro-
| |
| -
| |
| blem into fewer dimensions (if possible with symmetry), and the division of a complex problem into smaller sequential problems.
| |
| For a submerged discharge of effluent entering a swiftly moving turbulent river in a direction perpendicular to the mainstream current, three regimes of flow can be defined:
| |
| : l. the very near field, where the momentum of the effluent jet causes intensive mixing resulting in rapid reduction in maximum effluent concentration;
| |
| : 2. a region (loosely termed the intermediate field) where the effluent stream has been turned and is moving along with the current, almost like a part of the mainstream, and is diffusing laterally and vertically predominately 4ue to river turbulence and some buoyant action; and
| |
| : 3. the far field, defined here as the region where the effluent is moving downstream passively, fully mixed in the vertical dimension with river turbulence dominating lateral diffusion. T These definitions of the conceptual regimes are based on observations made during dye studies on a test stretch of the Columbia River (5) and on stream data collected during operation of the now decommissioned Hanford production reactors(9) and the existing Hanford Generating Plant (HGP)( 0) These measurements indicated that a downstream heated plume will be vertically well-mixed in the test stretch even at low flow conditions.(1~)
| |
| Regime 1 encompasses a region extending from the point of discharge downstream to a location where cross-stream velocity is no longer significant. This flow regime is extremely complex because of the strong interaction between the jet and ambient streams. Numerous analytical and experimental studies concerning similar problems have been conducted in recent years. (12 i ~3) 6.1-3
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER A simplified analytical approach is through similarity analysis, in which the governing three-dimensional partial differential equations are reduced to or-dinary differential equations by assuming experimentally determined profiles for velocity and temperature (or concentration). Unfortunately, similarity approaches are strictly applicable only to discharges to semi-infinite water bodies. Hence, similarity theory cannot be applied with a great deal .of con-fidence to discharge flow behavior which is modified by a confining free sur-face or riverbed.
| |
| The blowdown effluents from WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 are categorized as severely confined discharges because at low flow the discharge orifice size is of the same order of magnitude as the water depth. Therefore a similarity solution would not be expected to yield accurate results. Additionally, it is doubtful that the jet will detach from the river bottom because of the expected rapid dilution of the buoyancy, the jet-i nduced turbulence, and the intense river turbulence.
| |
| The confining nature of the stream (surface and bottom) is a factor which tends to decrease jet dilution compared with predicted discharge to a semi-infinite ambient. Conversely, turbulence in the Columbia River as in other swiftly-moving streams, is very in'tense and since similarity theory does not provide for ambient turbulence, this factor tends to cause greater dilution than theory would predict.
| |
| Because of these limitations in applying the theory to the blowdown dis-charge, dilution for the very near field cannot be predicted very accu-rately. However, the theory is valuable for predicting the approximate tra-jectory of the plume and thus the point where cross-steam velocities become insignificant. These simulations can indicate the importance of the initial jet behavior and the point at which the intermediate zone solution can con-fidently be started.
| |
| The very near-field dynamic behavior and dilution has little influence on downstream conditions (i. e., at distances greater than 20 jet diameters downstream) in cases of discharge to swiftly moving streams.
| |
| The effluent in Regime 2 is flowing downstream with a velocity equal to that of the river flow. However, both lateral and vertical diffusion processes are important and buoyant forces may need to be considered. In this case, the advection-diffusi on transport equation for heat or other constituents can be applied.
| |
| 6.1-4 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The downstream river velocity is assumed to be known a riori frcm river ve-locity transect data, and secondary (transverse and vertical flow effects are masked by mainstream turbulence. In accordance with the definition of this regime, downstream velocity perturbations caused by the discharge effluent are also assumed to be insignificant compared to the mainstream flow.
| |
| Considerable simplification may be achieved if the-turbulent behavior of the mainstream dominates buoyant effects. This behavior is typical of shallow, swiftly moving streams such as the river reach which will receive the WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 blowdown discharges. Also, steady flow can be assumed for the analysis of selected blowdown and river flow conditions which do not vary rapidly with time. The advection-diffusion equation for Regime 2 can then be written:
| |
| 3T ax
| |
| | |
| =K 3T +Kza2 ya2 3T where k
| |
| y u k
| |
| K z u and T = temperature x = downstream coordinate y = cross-stream coordinate z = vertical coordi nate u = downstream velocity component ky, kz = eddy diffusivities for heat in the y and z directions, respectively In this equati on downstream diffusi on has been eliminated because the contri-bution is small compared to downstream advection.
| |
| The following summarizes assumptions used in deriving the advection-diffusion equation:
| |
| : 1. The downstream velocity distribution, ur, is known a ~riori from field data.
| |
| : 2. Buoyancy effects are insignificant.
| |
| : 6. 1-5 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER
| |
| : 3. Vertical and lateral velocity components are insignificant.
| |
| : 4. Eddy diffusivities are homogeneous, but possibly anisotropic.
| |
| : 5. Downstream diffusion is insignificant compared to downstream advecti on.
| |
| : 6. The flow is steady in time (i.e., 8T/Bt = 0).
| |
| : 7. Atmospheric effects are insignificant.
| |
| The advection-diffusion equation has the form of the classical transient heat conduction equation and may be easily solved for any desired boundary condi-tion using well-tested numerical techniques. For application to WNP-2 and WNP-1/4, an alternating direction implicit finite difference solution was used.
| |
| Regime 3 is identified as the far field, where the effluent is moving down-stream passively and is fully mixed in the vertical dimension. Atmospheric effects, i.e., heat transfer across the air-water interface may become signi-ficant. The approximate beginning of this region is ascertained by the cal-culation procedure outlined for Regime 2. Regime 3 was not modeled since Regime 2 assumptions were adequate to encompass the mixing zone.
| |
| 6.1.1.2 Ecolo ical Parameters A uatic Studies at the Hanford Site for more than 35 years have resulted in a sub-stantial amount of qualitative and quantitive information useful for impact assessment. In addition, the Supply System has conducted a preliminary pro-gram including literature studies [f, 2) and field studies of the Columbia River from 1973 - 1980.'(15 16a 16>> (See Section 2.2.2 also.) These historic and preoperational studies have resulted in the knowledge of the com-position, structure, and function of the aquatic ecosystem and provided a basis for the design of the operational monitoring program.
| |
| The preoperational program concentrated on obtaining baseline data from which impacts of plant operation can most probably be measured if 'they should oc-cur. Accordingly, the portion of the river immediately adjacent to the plant site received the most attention as did the biota most likely affected.
| |
| Monitoring of those aquatic populations unlikely to be affected by plant oper-ation was retained in the program, but with a lower level of effort. The major preoperational monitoring program tasks included benthic biota, fish, and plankton monitoring.
| |
| 6.1-6 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| "
| |
| WNP-2 ER The preoperational program was curtailed in March 1980 with the concurrence of the Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC).(>>i These studies provide a continuous data series on the natural variations in the sea- 4 sonal occurrence and abundance of important aquatic species near the WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 sites from 1973 through early 1980. This knowledge of the extent of natural variations permits evaluation of changes in the abundance of important aquatic species in the vicinity of the projects before and after operation. A comparison of changes in species abundance in the vicinity of the intake and discharge in relation to changes in control areas outside the influence of the plant will be made before and after operation.
| |
| Benthic Or anisms. Alterations of the Columbia River aquatic biota due to the influence of the plant effluent should be most readily indicated by changes in the structure of the benthic community in the irmydiate vicinjty of the dis-charges. The Supply System's aquatic ecological L15s 16a-16f) program has characterized the composition, density and seasonal abundance of the benthic fauna near WNP-2 and WNP-1/4. The preoperational benthic program focused on [4 the benthic flora and fauna in the area of expected discharge impact.
| |
| Figure 6.1-1 indicates sampling locations for the aquatic biota program.
| |
| Station 1 above and Station 8 below the area influenced by the discharge plume and Stations 7 and 11 in the plume were utilized. These stations were sampled four times per year (March, June, September, and December) to establish baseline information on comnunity composition and abundance. For benthic fauna, rock-filled baskets were incubated on the bottom for three months. On recovery, species composition, biomass and commuinity dominance were deter-mined. For benthic flora, glass microscope slides were incubated at the same sites as the rock-filled baskets and sampled on the same frequency. gualita-tive species analysis, chlorophyll-a and biomass measurements were made.
| |
| Replicate benthic flora and fauna samples were taken to allow for statistical analysis of community changes.
| |
| Fish. Identification of the species present in the Hanford stretch of the rsver is essentially complete. The Supply System's program has examined the spatial, and temporal distribution, species relative abundance, age structure and feeding habits of fish found near the site. In the preoperational program, emphasis was placed on fish found in the immediate vicinity of the intake and the discharge plume. Species and numbers of fish residing season-ally near the plant were examined with particular attention given to anadro-mous outmigrants. Samples were obtained using one or more of the following sampling methods: hoop-nets, electroshocking, gill netting or beach seining.
| |
| Sampling locations for each of these methods are shown in Figure 6.1-1. A tag and release program was used in an attempt to determine population size and time of residence within the study area.
| |
| Fish sampling was conducted at least monthly, February through October. Table ~
| |
| 4 6.1-2 provides the sampling frequency by method.
| |
| 6.1-7 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Plankton. Some fraction of the river's plankton will be drawn into the plant with the cooling water and another fraction will be exposed to the effects of entrainment in the discharge plume. The numbers so affected are an extremely small fraction of the population passing the plant. Studies conducted by the Supply System on the Columbia River indicate that planktonic algae and micro-4I crustaceans in the aquatic system near WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 do not have a major role in energy transfer pathways. No significant impact on the plankton com-munity is expected because of the small volume of water withdrawn by WNP-2, and the small volume influenced by the discharged water compared to the total river flow. Nonetheless, phyto and zooplankton studies were conducted, on a limited basis. Investigations by the Supply System indicate that samples representative of j:he rjveq plankton population may be obtained from any one 1 station and depth.'115. ~6ai Therefore, during the preoperational program tinuouss plankton samples were taken at one station (Station 1, Figure 6.1-1) monthly and one depth. These samples were used to determine phyto and zooplankton species relative abundance and baseline biomass. This program provided a con-indicator of changes in the plankton population.
| |
| Groundwater The Department of Ener gy (DOE) through its contractors has drilled about 1,500 wells on the Hanford Reservation.(>>> Nore than 20 wells are located withi n 5 miles of the pqgjpct site and 6 wells are installed in the iomediate vicin-ity .of the site;<~"> see Figure 2.4-15.
| |
| Extensive environmental monitoring programs concerni ng the physical, chemical and radiological characteristics of groundwater have been conducted under the DOE auspices<18a). These monitoring programs and investigations have al-ready accumulated quite comprehensive information on groundwater character-istics and are expected to'e continued routinely as part of the DOE program.
| |
| The Supply System has no plans to monitor non-radiological groundwater quality parameters during the preoperational phase.'.1.3 Air 1.3.1 Onsite meteorological data were collected at the WNP-2 site from April 1, 1974 through May 31, 1976. The meteorological data collection system consisted of a 245-ft tower, an auxiliary 7-ft instrument mast, sensors with associated electronics and recording devices, and a meteorological building.
| |
| A temporary meteorological system began collecting data at the same location in March 1972 and was discontinued (September 1974) once the satisfactory op-eration of the new system was verified. The temporary meteorological system consisted of a 23-ft mast with an aerovane wind sen'sor. Data was recorded on chart paper. Air temperature and relative humidity were recorded by use of a hygrothermograph in an adjacent weather screen.
| |
| 6.1-8 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| The permanent meteorological system consists of a primary tower 240;ft high with an extending 5-ft mast. The primary tower is triangular in shape and of open lattice construction to minimize tower interference with meteorological measurements. Wind and temperature measurements on the main tower were made at the 245-ft and 33-ft levels. At the 33-ft level the instruments (wind, temperature, and dewpoint) were mounted on an 8-ft horizontal boom extending west-northwest of the tower.
| |
| Mind and temperature measurements were also made at the top of the 7-ft mast which is located approximately 80 ft to the southwest of the 240-ft tower.
| |
| Wind speed measurements wer e made using, conventional cup anemometers (Climet Instruments, Nodel 01101 Mind Speed Transmitter). The instruments have a re-sponse threshold of about 0.6 mph and an accuracy of + 15 or 0.15 mph (whichever is greater) over a range of 0.6 to 90 mph. The instruments were 4 calibrated at speeds between approximately 5 and 20 mph.
| |
| Wind direction measurements were made using lightweight vanes (Climet Instru-ments, Model 012-1 10 Wind Direction Transmitter). The response threshold of these vanes is about 0.75 mph, and their damping ratio and distance constant are approximately 0.4 and 3.3 ft, respectively. Dual potentiometers in the wind direction transmitter produce an electrical signal covering 540o in azimuth with an accuracy of within + 2o.
| |
| Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER In addition, electronics have been included to provide signals which are proportional to the standard deviation (v6) of the wind direction fluctuations at each level.
| |
| Temper'ature instrumentation provided measurements of both the ambient air temperature at the 245, 33, and 7-ft levels and the temperature differences between these levels. The ambient air temperature and the temperature difference sensors are independent of each other to provide reliability.
| |
| All temperature measurements for both systems are made in aspirated temperature shields (Climet Instruments Model 016-1 or -2) using platinum resistance temperature devices (Rosemount Engineering Co., Model 104 MB6ABCA) . These instruments provide an ambient temperature range from -30 F to +130 F and a temperature difference range of +15 F. The accuracy of the instruments exceeds +0.9 F in tEe measurement of temperatures and +0.18 F in the measurement of temperature differences.
| |
| The dewpoint temperature was measured at the 33-ft level of the tower using a lithium chloride dewpoint sensor (Climet Instruments, Model 015-1 12) housed in an aspirated tempera-ture shield (Climet Instruments, Model 016-2) . The accuracy of this measurement in the normal range, of measurement is better than +0.9 F.
| |
| Precipitation was measured at ground level using a tipping bucket rain gage (Meteorology Research, Model 302) located about 40 ft west of the'ain tower. This instrument, is accurate to within +1% at rainfall rates,up to 3 in./hr and has a resolution of 0.01 in.
| |
| The instrument building provided a climate-controlled environ-ment near the tower,.to ho'use 'the instrument electronics and record the data,. Both digital magnetic tape 'and analog strip chart recorders were used providing redundant data recording capability. The primary data recording system is a, 2-track digital magnetic tape rec'order'Kennedy, Model 1600) that uses lj'2-in. tape. Logarithmically, time-averaged wind speed, wind direction, .temperature, temperature difference, and dewpoint temperature signals were recorded at 5-minute intervals. The time constant of the averaging process is 5 to 15 minutes. The standard deviation of wind direction fluctuations during the prec'eding 5 minutes at each level and the .total precipitation were recorded along with the wind and temperature information. All data, except the wind direction, standard deviations, were recorded on strip 6.1-10 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| NNP-2 ER charts. Besides enhancing data retrievability, the strip chart records provided a rapid means of identifying instrument malfunctions and were useful in system calibration. Strip charts and magnetic tapes were changed weekly.
| |
| In summary, the total system (sensor, recorder, analysis, etc.) accuracies for the measured meteorological parameters meet or exceed the following specifications:
| |
| air temperature +0.5 C temperature difference 0 2oC humidity (dew point,) +0.5 C, wind speed +0.5 mph wind direction ~50 These are verified by the end-to-end calibrations. Data recovery was better than 90%.
| |
| To ensure the quality of the meteorological data collected by the monitoring system, an extensive quality assurance program was instituted. This program covered all phases of meteorological monitoring from the initial instrument acquisition through the analysis of data. Periodic checks and calibration of the instrument systems and individual components were instituted. These periodic checks ranged from daily inspection of the strip charts to semiannual calibration of the complete system.
| |
| Calibrations were performed at three-month intervals during the duration of data collection (April 1, 1974 - liay 31, 1976) . Pull system (system electronics and sensors) calibrations were performed (dated) July, October 1974, April, October 1975, and April 1976. Calibrations of just the system electronics were performed at the intervals between. Prior to April 1, 1974 the system was calibrated by the vendor.
| |
| The final calibration, prior to shutdown, was an electronics calibration during June 1976.
| |
| All checks, calibrations, and maintenance were fully docu-
| |
| .mented including traceability of test and calibration equip-ment to the National Bureau of Standards where necessary.
| |
| These calibrations and routine daily and weekly inspections demonstrated that the meteorological system remained electronicallv stable in terms of obtaining data of sufficient quality to meet the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.23. Corrections to the'ata have been applied per the quarterly calibration gindings and all data have been summarized in the form of monthl'y reports.
| |
| The data, once collected, were protected, from loss to the maximum extent possible. The digital tapes were examined to identify possible instrumentation malfunctions. The data were then copied onto two'aster tapes. The'riginal weekly tape and one master tape were stored in vaults. The second Raster. tape was used in the preparation of data summaries.
| |
| 6.1-11 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Finally, to ensure proper operation of computer hardware all computer programs used to summarize or analyzeand'oftware, the data were checked quarterly. These checks were per-formed using a standard data input. The computer output from these tests was saved to document computer operation.
| |
| 6.1.3.2 Models Dis ersion Estimates.
| |
| made xn accordance with applicable documents ''sing Short-term diffusion yy$ ipgfes were data from the 245-ft meteorology tower at the NNP-2 site.
| |
| The basic Gaussian diffusion model for a groundlevel release is employed using lateral (ay) and vertical (a ) ~p'ead parameters determined experimentally at HanforB.(
| |
| For long-term diffusion estimates, the Hanford speed para-meters are used in the Gaussian diffusion model for a ground-level release. Assumptions in the calculation are reflection of the plume at the ground, no plume depletion by surface deposition or washout, and uniform 'occurrence of the plume within each sector. The appropriate form of the Gaussian model is 2n (2)
| |
| Q.
| |
| (2~) ~ g 6.l-lla Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER where
| |
| ~
| |
| Q
| |
| = normalized air concentration n = number of sectors u = mean wind speed Sixteen sectors were used. The values of ay and vz used for stable atmospheric conditions pere determined experimen-tally at Hanford and are given by:<
| |
| =At-2 = A 1-exp 2 (aou) t a 2 (3) 2(a e u) 13.0 + 232aou (4) a z
| |
| 2 =
| |
| a 1-exp(-k 2 t 2 ) + bt (5) x/u (6) where t = time
| |
| = downwind distance x
| |
| a = horizontal wind-direction standard deviation e
| |
| and the coefficients are given as:
| |
| Moderately Stable Ver Stable 2
| |
| 97 m 34 m b 0.33 m /sec 0.025 m /sec k 2.5 x 10 sec 8.8 x 10 sec "For neutral and unstable atmospheric conditions the Sutton formulations a
| |
| 2 = y 2
| |
| x (2 m)
| |
| (7) a z
| |
| 2 = z 2
| |
| 2 x (2-m) (8) 6.1-12
| |
| | |
| l'KP-2 ER used where the coefficients for a groundlevel release are given as:
| |
| Wind Speed m/sec Unstable Neutral C 0.10<u<2.0 0.35 0.21 2.0 <u<7.0 0.30 0.15 7.0 <u 0.28 0.14 C 0.22<u<2.0 0.35 0.17 2.0 <U<7.0 0.30 0.14 7.0 <u 0.28 0.13 0.20 0.25 For the purpose of comparison, the dT stability classifica-tion that. has been used in diffusion studies at Hanford, and which has been used here, is compared with the hT/hz Pasquill classes identified in the AEC Regulatory Guide 1.23 (where hT = change in air temperature and b,z = change in vertical distance):
| |
| Re ulatory Guide 1.23 Definition for Hanford Pasteur.ll DT hz Di fusion Parameters Class ('F/200 ft) Class 6T hz ('F 200 ft)
| |
| <-2.1 Unstable <-1.5 e
| |
| -2.1 to -1.9
| |
| -1.9 to -1.6 Neutral -0.5 to -1.5 D -1.6 to -0.6
| |
| -0.6 to 1.6 'Moderately 3.5 to -0.5 Stable 1.6 to 4.4
| |
| >4.4 Very >3.5 Stable The above described model is consistent with standard methods with the exception that the plume growth rates used are those 6.1-13
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER determined to be most. appropriate for the Hanford area based upon many diffusion'xperiments at. Hanford.
| |
| To demonstrate the effect of dilution in the building wake cavity on estimates of sector-averaged values (crosswind integrated), v z was replaced by 1/2 a + cB z
| |
| IT (9) where c = empirical coefficient, conservatively taken as 0.5 B = cross-sectional area of building normal to wind Hourly 30-minute averages of a and hT were used to determine the plume growth parameters, a5 discussed above, and x/Q for each hour of the year for each sector and selected distances.
| |
| For calm wind conditions, a speed of 0.22 mph was assumed (threshold of the instrument); for a less than 1', a value of 1'as assumed.
| |
| The straight-line Gaussian diffusion model using empirically derived diffusion coefficients based on Hanford experimental data is expected to provide the best estimate of transport and dispersion for the WNP-2 site. The Hanford dispersion parameters described above are particularly applicable, since they are based on the results of numerous field tracer studies over local terrain representative of the terrain downwind of WNP-2 out to the distances where the maximum individual doses and population doses are computed. Based on available information, the inherent transport assumptions of the straight-line Gaussian methodology will not cause a substantial underestimate'f individual or population doses.
| |
| Additional discussion of the adequacy of the Gaussian diffusion model is given in Section 2.3.5.2 of the FSAR.
| |
| Methods Used for Modelin Coolin Tower Atmos heric Plumes.
| |
| A computer program, utilizing diffusion and cumulus cloud models was used to estimate'he environmental effects of the circular mechanical draft evaporative cooling tower. Because the cooling tower analysis preceded the availability of data from the permanent, onsite meteorological system, one year of onsite hourly data from the temporary meteorological system was combined with hourly stability data from the Hanford meteorology tower for the analysis. Individual plume characteristics are calculated and the results summarized in monthly and annual tables.
| |
| /
| |
| 6.1-14 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The plume rise from the circular mechanical draft cooling towers of WNP-2 are calculated using a mygj$ ied heat input term in the Briggs plume rise equations. This heat ~24 input term was calculated based on the Weinstein and Davis cumulus cloud model at 0400 and 1600 hours each day. The cumulus cloud model and the Briggs model predictions were compared and correction factors calculated for the heat input to the Briggs model. The correction factors were then linearly interpolated for other hours and applied to the Briggs model predictions for those hours.
| |
| The plume rise est'mates were used to define the centerline of the plume, while the prevailing wind direction defined the direction of movement.
| |
| It was assumed that for a given set of design and meteoro-logical conditons, vapor leaving a cooling tower diffuses 6.1-14a Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER outward from the center of a plume according to the Gaussian plume formula regardless of whether some of the vapor condenses to fog. The criteria for visible plume formation and subse-quent dissipation were based on a comparison of the calculated water vapor concentration of the plume and the corresponding value from a curve of saturation vapor pressure as a function of temperature. Whenever the latter was the greater quantity, the plume was assumed to be no longer visible.
| |
| If ground fog is predicted to be present at a given distance, the width of the plume at groundlevel is determined by the relationship, Y = 3 (a ) ln (Xmax X (10)
| |
| When Y is the plume width, Xmax is the maximum value of X along the centerline, and X is the minimum humidity asso-ciated with fogging based on ambient conditions.
| |
| The analysis was performed for an entire year of data. The results of visible plume lengths, widths, and ground inter-actions as a function of distance and direction were tabulated for all conditions, and for freezing conditions.
| |
| The results are given in Section 5.1.4.
| |
| Although this model is a combination of a number of physical processes for which experimental verification is available, an overall verification of the plume estimates with field data has not been performed. The impact estimates can be expected to be generally conservative as a result of the choice of conservative assumptions relative to plume rise and water source term. A more detailed discussion of the model, assumptions, and results is contained in Reference 26.
| |
| Drift Im act Model. The drift estimates are based upon the salts from graphical method of estimating deposition rates of al.(27) evaporative cooling towers developed by Hosier et They describe the problem as follows: "Drift drops are car-ried by the plume updraft up to a certain height andThethen they fall to the ground while traveling with the wind. surface over which this salt will be distributed depends on the wind speed and the time the drops will spend in the air. This time depends on the maximum height the drop reaches and the drop fall velocity. The fall velocity of the drift drops is reduced with time because of evaporation. The rate and extent regulates of evaporation depends on: 1) salt concentration, which vapor pressure, 2) size of the droplet, and 3) ambient rela-tive humidity. For the same environmental the conditions, drops of different sizes may or may not achieve same degree of evaporation before reaching the ground. To simplify the pro-blem only three degrees of evaporation were considered:
| |
| : 1) no evaporation, 2) evaporation to saturated solution, and 6.1-15
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER
| |
| : 3) evaporation to dry salt particles. .A graph was constructed for each degree of evaporation. These graphs can be used to determine the surface to be covered by the salt, from the knowledge of the drift mass distribution as a function of drop size, the salt concentration, the maximum height of the drop, and the wind speed.(
| |
| the cited model:
| |
| 18.2 m Height of tower 610,000 gpm Water circulated per unit time (b) 4.2 x 10 Mass of salt per mass of circulating water(a) 310 gpm Drift (0.05% of circulated water) 36 fps Stack exit velocity Table 6.1-1 lists the mass size distribution of drift droplets.
| |
| Based on long-term climatological records at the Hanford Meteorological Station (HMS), the year was divided into two primary classes: 1) summer (April through September), when relative humidities averaged 40% and 2) winter (October through March), when relative humidities averaged 78%.
| |
| Plume height was allowed to vary with atmospheric stability.
| |
| The hei,ghts used were based on estimates made by Woodruff et al.<" ) for mechanical draft cooling tower plumes.
| |
| Presumptions were that the plume would rise to a height of 1000 ft above andstackto top during summer neutral and unstable ft during summer stable atmospheres.
| |
| atmospheres, 330 During winter the comparable heights for neutral/unstable and for stable situations were 1300 ft and 430 ft, respectively.
| |
| Hosier et al. (27) found minimal differences in deposition rates calculated by using mean wind speeds and by using observed wind speed distribution. Mean speeds observed at the 400-ft (a) Thz.s value is five times the average of dissolved con-stituents of the Columbia River during 1969-70. The additional concentration is presumed to account for "distillation" in the cooling tower evaporation process.
| |
| There is an additional mass of salts added to the river water as it enters the cooling system, but this addition amounts to only 1/610 of that contributed by the raw river water, and thus is ignoredof in570,000 the calculations.
| |
| (b) Larger than final design value gpm.
| |
| (c) Final design value is 285 gpm.
| |
| : 6. 1-16
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER elevation at the Hanford Meteorological Station were used in the calculations. Xt was assumed that the period 0600 to 1800 hours daily was thermally unstable or neutral, and that the nighttime period, 1800 to 0600 hours, experienced stable atmospheres. Mean 400-ft wind speeds associated with these periods were 9.5 mph for winter days, and 10.9 mph
| |
| =for winter nights.'offman and Van Vleck (28) show that the state-of-the-art of predicting the salt deposition from drift, droplets is such that the values obtained by various methods vary by a factor of +10. The present estimates are considered a maximum as a result of the choice of generally conserva-tive assumptions for the calculation.
| |
| As a result of the small quantities of nonradiological air pollutants to be released, the Applicant does not propose to initiate a nonradiological preoperational air quality monitoring program. An independent system is operated by the Hanford Environmental Health Foundation. This program includes measurement. at several locations in the Hanford area of airborne particulates, S02 and NO2. These measure-ments as well as other air quality aspects of the site have been discussed in the PSAR (Section 2.3.1).
| |
| 6.1.4 Land Much applicable land-monitoring information related to the WNP-2 site has been collected over the years by ERDA.(17)
| |
| Research field studies, particularly of soils and terres-trial ecology, were carried out on the Hanford Reservation by ERDA contractors. Thus, the data base in this case is substantial with regard to land monitoring information.
| |
| 6.1.4.1 Geolo and Soils The Hanford Project, including the WNP-2 site, has been the object of many geologic studies, mainly of a topical nature.
| |
| McHenry(30) characterized the chemical and physical proper-ties of soils of the project from drilling samples collected from approximately 40 wells spaced about the project.
| |
| Hajek(31) classified the soils of the project. on an agri-cultural basis.
| |
| Earlier topical geology studies, related primarily to aspects of radioactive waste disposal, included subsurface geology of the Hanford area, identification of stratigraphic units, correlation of volcanic flows, and aquifer descriptions.(32 37) 6.1-17
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Additional and detailed information on geologic studies, soil boring patterns, and analytical and testing methods used are contained in the Final Safety Analysis Report.
| |
| Although research studies have been carried out over a number of years con-cerning terrestrial ecology on the Hanford Reservation, none of these studies have been aimed at assessing impacts of cooling tower drift. Cooling tower drift will be a new kind of environmental stress for Hanford Reservation ecosystems.
| |
| 'TW wegetative cover growing in the near vicinity of the cooling towers con-sists pr imarily of cheatgrass, Bromus tectorum. This grass provides the main biotic protection against soil cross on. Because the climate is dry, salt dis-solved'in drift droplets is expected to accumulate in the soil profile. Salt accumulation is expected to be most concentrated near the base of the cooling tower and rapidly decrease with increasing distance from the tower. The longer the cooling towers are operational, the more intense the salt accumulation.
| |
| Although it is expected that cheatgrass will be tolerant of moderate increases>
| |
| in soil salt and pH values, there are no data presently available to judge of increased soil salt concentrations needed to significantly impair the'agnitude the germi nability of cheatgrass seeds. This is an important point because cheatgrass is an annual grass and the stand originates from seed each year and there is no known plant that is as successful in this habitat as is cheatgrass.
| |
| A preoperati onal monitoring program to detect and assess si gnificant changes in soil chemistry in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 caused by salt drift will be initiated prior to plant operation. Soil samples will be collected at study plots located at distances bracketing the area of expected maximum im-pact in the predominant downwind directions (N and SE). A control plot in similar soil, but removed from influence of the cooling tower plumes, will be selected. Each study plot will be marked so that the same plot can be exam-ined during post-operational monitoring. Less than optimum locations may have to be selected to avoid undisturbed soil and working areas.
| |
| At each study plot, composite samples will be taken to a depth of approxi-mately six (6) inches below the surface. Samples will be analyzed for salt content, electrical conductivity, and pH. Chemical analyses will be for the dominant ions in the cooling tower drift and in the soil: the cations Ca, Mg, Na, and K and the anions C03, HC03, S04, and Cl.
| |
| 6.1-18 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 6.1.4.2 Land Use and Demo ra hic Surve s Land use in the immediate vicinity of the WNP-2 site is under the control of Department of Energy (previously ERDA),
| |
| and the staff of the Richland Operations Office provided the source material required for land use descriptions of Hanford Project facilities. Additional information related to off-project land uses was obtained primarily from the Bureau of Reclamation Regional Office, which is responsible for much of the land development in surrounding areas, from the Soil Conservation Service, and from the Washington State Depart-ment. of Agriculture. Some .information was provided by the County Planning Offices in adjacent counties; however, this was generally related to county zoning rather than actual current land use. The collected published data were supple-mented with information obtained from personal conversation with county planning and other local, county, State and Federal agency officials and through reconnaissance surveys of those areas where missing or questionable data were concerned.
| |
| Demographic data for the latest census year (1970) were obtained from Bureau of the Census publications. Informa-tion for population projections was available from the
| |
| 'Washington g$ e Office of Program planning and Fiscal Management,'he ~ Portland Btyts University Center for Population Resegcf and Census, ) the Bonneville power Administratjggj the Pacific Northwe])giver Basins Commission, Pacific Norg2@qst Bell, and the Tri-City Nuclear Industrial Council. ' Rural population trends were based also .on estimaggI developed for the Columbia Basin Development League.'nformation from these sources were used by the Applicant to project population for fufure census years over the expected life of the plant.<"
| |
| In conjunction with the construction of WNP-1 and -4, the Applicant is conducting a program to monitor the socioeconomic effects. The results of this study will be partially appli-cable to WNP;2. The purpose of the study is to document, assess,. and project the primary and secondary socioeconomic effects and impacts of construction and operation of WNP-1 and -4. Two phases are defined in implementing the study.
| |
| The first phase will emphasize measurement and documentation of socioeconomic effects into the peak of construction of the WNP-1 and WNP-4 projects. Preliminary reports will be
| |
| ,
| |
| on an annual basis for each of these years. The second phase of the, study will be to prepare a final report which vill; 1) make an evaluation of the accuracy og a previously conducted impact projection report and 2) make new pro-jections, if found necessary, independent of the previous study,,Based on u~$ ~tyd information developed in the pre-liIrjinary reports.,
| |
| Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL The important socioeconomic factors expected to be studied in detail are list-ed below:
| |
| o in-migrant workers and families o resident workers and families o the relationship between contract construction on WNP-1 and -4 and secondary employment o economic'onditions in the study area o schools o housing a I
| |
| o government services and facilities o traffic flow and transportation o social and health services o police and fire protection 6.1.4e3 Terrestrial Ecolo The important local flora and fauna are being identified to the species level, 1 and the relationships of the fauna to the vegetation and to the salient cli-matic and soil features of the local environment are being described (48-51).
| |
| The Bald Eagle is the only threatened animal species to occur in the area. No other Federally designated threatened or endangered animals or plants live in the area. Recommendations will be made to preserve special habitats necessary for the continued protection of such species should they occur. The impor'tant shrub-steppe food chains are also being identified.
| |
| The preoperational monitoring program will focus'on establishing a baseline for evaluating cooling tower drift effects.
| |
| : h. 11dh h 1 1 dd d 1 <<h s>te and adjacent area were made by the Supply System to provide a'basis for mapping the extent of existing plant communities between the plant site .and the Columbia River. Photography is not believed to $ e pophisticated enough to detect incipient changes due to cool'ing tower drift.<48> Future terrestrial impact assessment will rely on analysis of vegetation study and soil chemistry data (Section 6.1.4.1) but not aerial photography. p(NP 6.1-20 Amendment 5 July 1981
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL Ve etational Anal ses. A program to establish a data base for terreqtrial ecosystems in the vicinity of WNP-1, 2, and 4 was initiated in 1974.(48)
| |
| Vegetation study areas were established at five locations within approximately one mile of the site. Two of these plots are located within an area burned by wildfire in 1970 and thr ee are in areas that escaped the fire. Figure 6.1-2 shows the location of terrestrial ecology study sites. Knowledge from these studies wi 11 apply to construction impacts because the 1970 fire was extremely hot, destroying virtually all plant life and all seeds which would have nor-mally germinated the next year. As with construction areas, vegetation of these areas depends on new seeds blowing in from unburned areas.
| |
| Species composition and relative abundance of seed plants at the five study plots were measured according to a canopy cover method of vegytagional anal-ysis developed for shrub-steppe and meadow-steppe vegetation.(38J The per-cent of canopy (ground) cover provided by various botanical categories for 1975 through 1978 is shown in Figure 6.1-4.
| |
| The dominant species in burned and unburned areas is cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) which comprises almost all the annual grass category. The primary productivity (grams of dry matter produced per square meter per year) of the Hanford bitterbuyg-qheatgrass ecosystem is similar to other United States arid land ecosystems.(>>) The data presented in Figure 6.1-5 reflects that pri-mary productivity varies from year to year depending upon the weather and other environmental variables.
| |
| The preoperational monitoring program will include continued analyses of plant communities on the five (5) previously established study plots. Field exami-nation of these plots and a control will be conducted yearly at the time of peak flowering. Primary productivity, canopy cover,'nd frequency of occur-rence will be obtained.
| |
| The emphasis of preoperational studies will be to establish a baseline for assessing impacts on indigenous vegetation caused by cooling tower drift.
| |
| Vegetation study plots are established>>adjacent to the soil sampling plots discussed in Section 6.1.4.1. Litterfall sampling was performed in 1979 and 1980. Due to the extreme variability seen in the collection it is question-able whether this method could be used to detect changes in shrub productivity over gimp. Accordingly, the Supply System, w'ith the concurrance of EFSECi>>i, has deleted this approach from the terrestrial monitoring pro-gramso Animal Studies. Studies have focused on censuses of manmals and birds in the vicinity of the site. Small mammal populations were sampled using a live trap-mark-release-recapture technique in two contrasting plant communities.
| |
| One is a burned community, dominated by cheatgr ass, and the other is an un-burned, shrub-dominated community (Figure 6.1-2). Trapping is done. period-ically throughout the year to obtain information concerning the seasonal ap-pearance of young animals. The weights, age, sex, general health, and the occurrence of external parasites are recorded before release.
| |
| 6.1-21 Amendment 5 July 1981
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL The small mammal population is dominated by one species, the Great Basin Pocket Mouse. The pocket mouse population varies greatly according to the season of the year. The largest population normally occurs in late summer with the addition of young animals. A comparison of pocket catches in burned and unburned study plots is shown below:
| |
| Unburned Burned Year S rin Summer S rin Summer 1974 46 29 1975 36 27* 27 13*
| |
| 1976 52 53 8 2 1977 43 30 7 14 1978 15 56 1 5 1979 64 9 TO
| |
| *Trapping session conducted in July These data indicate that a large population of pocket mice resides in the un-burned plot and only a small population resides on the burned plot. It is not known if the small population on the burned plot is a result of the burning or whether some other factors are involved (i.e., predation). Analysis of the 1974-1979 pocket mice data indicates that about one-half percent of the total pocket mouse habitat on the Hanford Site may be already effected by construc-tion of WNP-2 and WNP-1/4. Based on the low level of impact and the project that future impacts would not be more sever e, pocket mice studies were deleted from the environmental monitoring program in 1981.(53)
| |
| An aerial census of larger mammals, i.e., deer and coyote, was made once in winter to obtain an estimate of the use of the local areas. A land census of deer and rabbits was initiated in 1981.(53) The pellet group count tech-nique will be performed semiannually on sample plots to obtain an estimate of use of the WNP-1, 2 and 4 site by these animals.
| |
| Bird surveys have been taken on a twenty (20) acre study plot near WNP-2.
| |
| Only three resident species were spotted during a three-day period in June 1976. The total was fourteen (14) Western Meadowlarks, six (6) Horned Larks, and two (2) Shrikes. The 1977 and 1978 results are similar to those of 1978.(51) In 1981, four new 20 acre sample plots were established in shrub and river habitats.(53) Species composition and density of birds will be determined during spring and fall censuses.
| |
| Studies to date have revealed no detrimental effects of plant construction on the indigenous animal and bird populations. Plant operation is expected to be less disruptive and detrimental than plant construction.
| |
| 6.1-22 Amendment 5 July 1981
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 6.1.6 Radiolo ical Monitorin The preoperational program is designed to provide measurements of radiation and radioactive materials in those exposure pathways, and for those radio-nuclides, which are expected to lead to the highest radiation exposures of i ndi vi dual s f rom the operati on of WNP-2. The preoperati onal program wi 11 begin two (2) years prior to the fuel loading of WNP-2, and follow the dur-ation speci,ied in the schedule below:
| |
| Two years of sampling for:
| |
| Direct radiation Fish Vegetati on Sediment One year of sampling for:
| |
| Airborne particulate Milk (except iodine)
| |
| River water Drinking water Ground water Six (6) months of sampling for:
| |
| Airborne iodine tionn, Milk (iodine)
| |
| The preoperational program objectives are to measure background levels and their variations in exposure pathways surrounding the site; to train person-nel; and to evaluate procedures, equipment, and techniques.
| |
| Table 6.1-3 describes the sample type, approximate location, sample collec-and analyses to be performed on each sample. Analytical techniques will be used such that the detection capabilities in Table 6.1-5 are achieved.
| |
| Figure 6.1-3 shows the approximate location of the stations, and Table 6.1-4 shows the samples to be obtai ned at each stati on.
| |
| Airborne sample stati ons have been chosen based on the projected population distribution around the site, adjacent land use, and meterorological data pre-sented in Chapter 2. Airborne measurements will be obtained from the vicinity of a residence which has the highest calculated atmospheric dilution factor.,
| |
| In selecting the locations, special attention was given to the zone within a ten mile radius of the site, especially areas in the prevailing down-wind directi on.
| |
| 6.1-23 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Consideration was also given to existing facilities on the Hanford Reservation in selecting these stations.
| |
| In the terrestrial monitoring part of this program (vegetation and farm products), the area within a ten-mile radius of the site is of concern, and attention is given to the area of Franklin County which uses Columbia River water for irrigation and is in the previling downwind direction. Samples collected will be those primary food chain components available which lead to man. Milk samples will be obtained from farms or individual milk animals which are located in sectors with the higher calculated annual average atmospheric dilution factors.
| |
| ,Aquatic sampling locations have been chosen based on the need to determine the WNP-2 impact on the aquatic environs separately from other facilities on the Hanford Reservation.
| |
| The intake water will be sampled to identify the isotopes and concentrations present prior to use by WNP-2. The water from the discharge line will be sampled prior to dilution by the Columbia River, and analysis will identify the isotopes and their concentrations which may be due to WNP-2 operation. Similar samples will be taken from the WNP-1/4 intake and discharge when those units begin operation. The Columbia River will be sampled at the first downstream user which is the Department of Energy (DOE) 300 Area. The water will be sampled, prior to any treatment or.
| |
| mixing, in the vicinity of the river water intake. The City of Richland drinking water will be sampled at the Municipal Water Treatment Plant. This will be representative of the water consumed and not of that withdrawn from the river. Ground water will be obtained from wells on the site which are being used to provide drinking water for construction workers. Fish will be obtained from the area of the plant discharge and,since there is no commerical fishing in this area of the river, the species selected will be those which are seasonally available. Due to the veloci,ty of the Columbia River in area of the site, sedimen-tary deposits are minimal and will be obtained from available areas above and below the discharge.
| |
| The type of analysis to be performed for the various media was chosen to provide measurements of radionuclides fr'om which the population doses may be estimated or verified to be below that specified in Appends I, 10CFR50. In some cases, the analysis provides a trend indicator, and will signal the need to perform additional specific analyses of individual samples'.
| |
| The frequencies selected are those expected to minimize the effect of day-to-day variations, and provide an adequate quantity of sample,to meet. minimum sensitivity requirements of Table 6.1-5.
| |
| The samples will provide statistically valid data which is used to compare to subsequent results, and detect changes from expected
| |
| ~Blues, Amendment 1 6.1-24 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER
| |
| 'TABLE 6;-l-l MASS SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF DRIFT DROPLETS (Mechanical Draft Tower)
| |
| Diameter, pm Percent of Mass 0- 50 50-100 20 100-150 21 150-200 16 200-250 13 250-300 300-350 Amendment 2 October 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 6.1-2 FISH SAMPLING FREQUENCY BY STATION AND METHODa Frequency Beach Hoop Gill/c Electro-Month Per Month Seine Net Travel Shockin January 1 no sample no sample 4 stations no sample February 1 6 stations no sample 4 stations no sample March 1 6 stations no sample 4 stations April 2 6 stations no sample 4 stations May 2 6 stati ons 4 stati ons 4 stati ons June 2 6 stations 4 stations 4 stations July 1 6 stati ons 4 stati ons 4 stati ons August 6 stations 4 stations 4 stations September 1 6 stations 4 stations 4 stations October 6 stations 4 stations 4 stations N ovember 1 no sample no sample 4 stations no sample December 1 no sample no sample 4 stations no sample aSee Figure 6.1-1 for sample sites bTwice monthly 4 cGill net sampling was terminated in July 1979 per EFSEC Resolution No. 157 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| HR TABLE 6.1-3 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONhlENTAL hlONITORING PROGRAM Sampling and Type and Frequency Sam le T e Locations Collection Fre uenc of Anal sis Airborne Particulate 1.2 miles S of WNP-2 Continuous Sampling Particulate:
| |
| and Radioiodine 1.5 miles NNE of WNP-2 Weekly Collection Gross B~
| |
| 2.0 miles SE of WNP-2 Gamma isotopic'n 9 miles SSE of WNP-2 quarterly composite 7 miles SE of WNP-2 (by location) 8 miles S of WNP-2 3 miles WNW of WNP-2 Radioiodine:
| |
| 4.2 miles ESE of WNP-2 Gamma for I-131 30 miles WSW of WNP-2 Meekly Direct Radiation4 1.2 miles S of WNP-2 Quarterly, Annually Gamma Dose 1.5 miles NNE of WNP-2 2.0 miles SE of WNP-2 9 miles SSE of WNP-2 7 milses SE of WNP-2 8 miles S of WNP-2 3 miles WNW of WNP-2 4.2 miles ESE of WNP-2 30 miles WSÃ of WNP-2 3 miles E of WNP-2 3 miles ENE of WNP-2 7 miles NNW of WNP-2 13 stations at 22~~ sectors River Water Intake WNP-1/4s Composite Aliquots Gamma isotopic Discharge WNP-1/4 for month Intake WNP-2 Tritium rt Discharge WNP-2
| |
| | |
| NNP-2 ER TABLE '6.'1-3 (Continued) 1 Sampling and Type and Frequency Sam le T e Location Collection Fre uenc of Anal sis Drinking Nater 7 miles ERDA 300 Area Composite aliquots Gamma isotopic
| |
| 'll miles Richland I'(ater for month Tritium7 Treatment Plant Ground Naters tl well NNP-2 Quarterly Gamma isotopic N2 well IMP-2 Tritium well I'INP-1 well NNP-4 Sediment ~l mile upstream Semi-annually Gamma isotope.'cs
| |
| ~2 miles downstream h1ilks Closest milk animal Semi-monthly Gamma isotopic Farm SE ~7 miles SE grazing season Farm SE ~8 miles ESE Monthly at other times Iodine - 131 Control, 30 miles NSN Fish 4 in vicinity of discharge Semi-annually Gamma isotopic 1 control Snake River Fruit and Vegetables Nithin 10 mile radius hIonthly during growing season Gamma isotopic
| |
| ~
| |
| Deviation may be required if samples are unobtainable due to hazardous conditions, seasonal All availability, malfunction of automatic sampling equipment, or other legitimate reasons.
| |
| deviations will be documented in the annual report.
| |
| ~ Particulate sample filters will be analyzed for gross Beta after at least 24 hours decay. If gross Beta activity is greater than 10 times the mean of the control sample, gamma isotopic anal-ysis should be performed on the individual sample.
| |
| Gamma isotopic means identification and quantification of gamma emitting radionuclides that may be attributable to the effluents of the facility.
| |
| | |
| WNP+
| |
| TABLE 6.1-3 (Continued) 4 Thermoluminescent Dosimeter (TLD) badges which contain 3-5 chips will be used. Each station will have two badges; one will be changed each quarter and one will be changed annually. The badges in each 22< sector will be placed at the exclusion areas of the plants.
| |
| 5 Sampling of the river water from the intake and discharge of 18lP-1/4 will begin at least 60 days prior to the fuel loading for NNP-l.
| |
| < Composite samples will be collected with equipment which is capable of collecting an aliquot at time intervals which are short relative to the compositing period.
| |
| 7 Tritium analysis will be performed on a quarterly composited sample.
| |
| 8 Wells sampled will be those which are being used to provide drinking water for construction personnel at each of the plants.
| |
| ~ Milk samples will be obtained from farms or individual milk animals which are located in sectors with the higher calculated annual average ground-level /Q's. If Cesium-134 or Cesium-137 is measured in an individual milk sample in excess of 30 pCi/1, then Strontium 90 analysis should be performed.
| |
| ~~ Fruit will be obtained from farms or gardens which use Columbia River water, if possible,vegetables and for irrigation and different varieties will be obtained as they are in season.
| |
| One sample each of root food, leafy vegetables,
| |
| | |
| .
| |
| and fruit should be collected each period.
| |
| >> Frequency of analysis will be as collected or as stated in these footnotes for special cases.
| |
| Note In addition to above guidance for operational monitoring, the following material is supplied for the e e preoperational programs.
| |
| I Q W 8 The monitoring program defined will be instituted 2 years prior .to the fuel loading of 'i(NP-2. The co a preoperational program should follow the duration specified in the schedule below.
| |
| | |
| NAP-2 ER TABLE 6.1-3 (Continued)
| |
| Two Years One Year Six hfonths direct radiation airborne particulate airborne iodine fish milk (except iodine) milk (iodine) vegetation river water sediment and soil drinking water ground water The Preoperational Radiological htonitoring Program objectives are to measure background levels and their variations along anticipated critical pathways surrounding the Supply System site, to train personnel,.
| |
| and to evaluate procedures, equipment, and techniques.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 6.1-4 KEY FOR FIGURE 6.1-3 Station Number Sam le T e 1 through 7 Particulate Radioiodine Direct Radiation Particulate Radioiodine Direct Radiation Milk Fruit and/or Vegetables Particulate Radioiodine Direct Radiation Milk Fruit and/or Vegetables 10 through 25 Direct Radiation 26 River Water 27 and 28 River Water Fish 29 and 30 Drinking Water 31 through 34 Ground Water 35 and 36 Sediment 37 and 38 Milk Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6.1-5 MAXIMUM VALUES FOR THE LOWER LIMIT OF DETECTION LLD a Airborne Particulate Water or Gas Fish Milk Vegetati on Sediment Anal sis C i/1 Ci/m3 Ci/k wet Ci/1 Ci/k wet Ci/k dr gross beta 1 x 10-2 3H 2000 54zn 15 130 5gFe 30 260 58,60Co 15 130 65Zn 30 260 g5Zr 30 g5Nb 15 1311 ]c 7x 102 60 134Cs 15 Sxl02 130 15 60 150 137Cs 18 6 x 10-2 150 18 80 180 140Ba 60 60 140La 15 15 aAcceptable detection capabilities for thermolominescent dosimeters used for environmental measurements are given in Regulatory Guide 4.13.
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6.1-5 Continued bTable 6.1-5 indicates acceptable detection capabilities for radioactive materials in environmental samples. These detection capabilities are tabulated in terms of the lower limits of detection (LLDs).
| |
| The LLD is defined, for purposes of this guide, as the smallest concentration of radioactive material in a sample that will yield a net count (above system background) that will be detected with 95K probability with only 5X probability of falsely concluding that a blank observation represents a "real" signal.
| |
| For a particular measurement'ystem (which may include radiochemical separation):
| |
| 4.66 sb LLD =
| |
| E ~
| |
| V ~
| |
| 2.22 ~
| |
| Y exp -AAt where LLD is the lower limit of detection as defined above (as pCi per unit mass or volume) sb is the standard deviation of the background counting rate or of the counting rate of a blank sample as appropriate (as counts per minute)
| |
| E is the counting efficiency (as counts per disintegration)
| |
| Y is the sample size in units of mass or volume) 2.22 is the number of disi ntegrations per minute per picocurie Y is the fractional radiochemical yield (when applicable)
| |
| X is the radi oactive decay constant for the particular radionuclide ht is the elapsed time between sample collection and counting n 5't CD The value of sb used in the calculation of the LLD for a particular measurement system should be O D based on the actual observed variance of the background counting rate or of the counting rate of the CZ' CD
| |
| $ CD blank samples (as appropriate) rather than on an unverified theoretically predicted variance. In calculating the LLD for a radi.onuclide determined by gambia-ray spectrometry, the background should C3 M include the typical contributions of other radionuclides normally present .in the samples (e.g.,
| |
| C) potassium-40 in milk samples).
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6.1-5 Continued b (Continued)
| |
| Analyses shall be performed in such a manner that the stated LLDs will be achieved under routine conditions. Occasionally background fluctuations, unavoidably small sample sizes, the presence of interfering nuclides, or other uncontrollable circumstances may render these LLDs unachievable. In such cases, the contributing factors will be identified and described in the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report.
| |
| c LLD for drinking water.
| |
| | |
| NON-8 URNED BURNED 1975 AG AF 12 PG PF 1976 AG AF ll PG 2 PF 3 1977 AG 1 AF 6 PG 1 PF 5 1978 AG AF PG i7 2 PF 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 PERCENT CANOPY COVER AG ANNUAL GRASS AF ANNUAL FORB PG-PERENNIAL GRASS PF PERENNIAL FORB Numerical Values Indicate the Number of Species in Each Botanical Category Amendment 4, October 1980 PERCENT CANOPY COVER OF WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM% HERBS IN VICIikITY OF WNP "2 HPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 Environmental Report FIG 6. 1-4
| |
| ~
| |
| | |
| YEARS PHYTOMASS
| |
| ,1975 195 233
| |
| / 1976 159 t18 1977 1052
| |
| ~1978 139 2 12 I
| |
| 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 GRAMS PER m, DRY VItT Average Live Aboveground Herb Phytomass + One Standard Error FIG.
| |
| Amendment 4, October.1980 AVERAGE HERB PRIMARY WASHINGTON PUBLIC POHER SUPPLY SYSTEM PRODUCTIVITY IN VICINITY OF WNP-2 WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO ~ 2 Environmental Report
| |
| : 6. 1-5
| |
| | |
| N HN GN BS WNP-1&4 DISCHARGE EF 'I2 WNP-2 DISCHARGE EF
| |
| ~11 BS HN
| |
| ~g C GN p-HN O 1000 FT.
| |
| BS - BEACH SEINE SITES HN - HOOP NET SITES GN - GILL NET SITES EF. ~ ELECTROFISH AREAS
| |
| ~ . SAMPLING STATIONS FOR PLANKTON, BENTHOS, 5 WATER QUALITY Rneminent 2, October 1978 AQUATIC BIOTA AND %GER QUALITY WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM +~LING STATIKIS NEAR MV-1, 2, HPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 AND 4.
| |
| Enviroamental RePort E IG. 6.1-1
| |
| | |
| RAILROAD 'r.,".''.,-: "','..',''.,SAND DUNES':,:.;. I SLAND ll I SLAND 12 wa %,~ ~,'y UNBURNED BURNED WYE I SLAND. 13
| |
| ~BARR I CAGE.
| |
| I WNP-4 WNP-2 WNP-I )0 0 E 0 I SLAND 15 I
| |
| fFIF C3 I SLAND'14:
| |
| '/ /
| |
| OUTE 10 ROUTE 4 /
| |
| SOUTH I SLAND 16 0 UNBURNED VEGETATION PLOT o BURNED VEGETATION PLOT I SLAND.ll A SMALL MAMMAL'PLOT
| |
| -- - APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY OF BURNED VEGETATION BIRD SURVEY 300 AREA Amendment. 1, Ma 1978 HASHINGTON PUBLIC POMER SUPPLY SYSTEM HPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY STUDY IN THE VICINITY OP WNP-2~
| |
| SI~
| |
| Environmental Report FIG. 6, 1-2
| |
| | |
| 04 0
| |
| 2 19 18 t 20 1/
| |
| WYR ARRICAO 21 5 1 15+
| |
| 14 4 22 3 +23
| |
| ~3 FIR ROAD 24 1
| |
| I ~ 38 I
| |
| /
| |
| I
| |
| / DOGWOOD ROAD
| |
| /
| |
| 5
| |
| /
| |
| I 7 I
| |
| GRMOOR ROAD O
| |
| O 6
| |
| ORN O RA@ 'OS ROAD z
| |
| FIGHT Amendment 1 Nav 197 RADIOLOGICAL SmPZE STATION LOCATIONS NPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 Environmental Report 6.l-3
| |
| | |
| MNP-2 ER
| |
| : 6. 2 OPERATIONAL ENV IRONNENTAL PROGRAM The scope and general content of the operational environmental monitoring pro-gram and special topical studies are described in the following subsections.
| |
| In all cases these programs may be modified based on the results of the pre-operational programs and the first year of operational data. Program details, including administrative controls and reporting plans, are contained in the Environmental Technical Specifications in Appendix I.
| |
| 6.2. I Mater ua 1 it The planned operational phase water quality monitoring program is described by Table 6.2-1. Continuous recordings will be made of the temperature of the blowdown and the makeup water. These mesurements will be made in the circu-lating water pumphouse and in the makeup water pumphouse, and will be repre-sentative of blowdown discharge temperatures and ambient river temperatures
| |
| ,near the intake. Temperatures in the intake pumphouse will not be representa-tive of ambient river conditions when makeup water is not being withdrawn.
| |
| Total residual chlorine will be measured every fifteen minutes during chlori-nation and for two hours after blowdown commences, or until it reaches un-detectable levels.
| |
| Chlorination requirements will be studied during the first year to determine the minimum daily discharge duration of free available and total residual chlorine which will allow the plant to operate efficiently.
| |
| 6.2.2 A uatic Environment The operational aquatic monitoring program will be designed based upon results of the preoperational program described in 6.1. 1.2. The programs will be similar in scope.
| |
| 6.2-1 Amendment 4 October 1900
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The operational radiological monitoring program will be the same as the preoperational program described in Section 6.1.5 for the first year of operation. The scope of monitorinq in subsequent years will be determined based upon the results of the two-year preoperational program and the first year' operational program.
| |
| 6.2.4 Meteorolo ical The operational monitoring program will include wind speed, direction and temperature measurements made at the 245 and 33 foot levels, and dewpoint measurements at the 33 foot level. Rainfall amounts and intensities will also be measured.
| |
| Real-time wind speed, direction and stability data will be available in the control room.
| |
| 6.2.5 Land The first year operational program will continue the preopera-tional programs described in 6.1.4 unless preoperational results indicate changes are necessary.
| |
| : 6. 2-2 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6.2-1 WATER UALITY MONITORING PROGRAM Wells WNP-2 in vicinity Measured Items Station 1* ~Dischar e Station ll* Station 8* of Plant Site Quantity (flow)
| |
| Temperature H Dissolved Oxygen H pH M Turbidity H Total Alkalinity H Filterable Residue (Total Dissolved Solid)
| |
| Nonfilterable Residue (Suspended Solids)
| |
| Conductivity Iron (Total)
| |
| Copper (Total)
| |
| Nickel (Total)
| |
| Zinc (Total)
| |
| Sulfate NH4+ Nitrogen N03- Nitrogen Ortho Phosphorus Total Phosphorus Oil and Grease
| |
| =Chlorine, Total Residual C = Continuous
| |
| * Refer to Figure 6.l-l for station location W = Weekly H = Monthly
| |
| = Quarterly Q
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 6.3 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING PROGRAMS Currently, a number of related studies are being carried out in the vicinity of the WNP-2 site by the Applicant and by or under sponsorship of several State and Federal agencies.
| |
| Some of these studies are of a continuing nature and date back 20 or more years, particularly those associated with assessment of effluent releases from the operation of the Hanford Production reactors.
| |
| 6.3.1 H drolo ical and Water Qualit Studies in Pro ress A enc 'ro ram U.S. Geological Survey, Continuous water stage and dis-Tacoma District Office charge measurements of the Columbia River below Priest Rapids Dam (RM 394.5).<1)
| |
| U.S. Geological Survey, Continuous water temperature Tacoma District Office measurements of the Columbia River at the City of Richland water supply treatment plant (RM 338) and at Vernita (RM 391).(2.3)
| |
| U.S. Energy Research and Weekly pH, turbidity, dissolved Development Administrat ion, oxygen, biochemical oxygen Richland Operations Office demand, and coliform sampling of the Columbia River at, the City of Richland water supply treatment plant (RM 338),
| |
| 300 Area (RM 345), and Vernita (RM 391), by Battelle-Northwest.(4)
| |
| U.S. Energy Research and Weekly coliform, fluoride and Development Administration, nitrate sampling of Columbia Richland Operations Office River at City of Richland water supply treatment plant (RM 338),
| |
| 300 Area (RM 345), and 100 Areas (to RM 384), by Hanford Environ-mental Health Foundation.(
| |
| U.S. Energy Research and Monthly to annual groundwater Development Administration, depth and water quality measure-
| |
| 'ichland Operations Office ments for observation wells on Hanford Reservation, by Battelle-Northwest and Atlantic Richfield Hanford Company.<
| |
| 6.3-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER A enc Pro ram U.S. Energy Research and Studies by Battelle-Northwest Development Administration, related to environmental Division of Reactor aspects of the potential estab-Research and Development lishment of a nuclear energy center yt the Hanford Reserva-tion. <7>
| |
| U.,S. Energy Research and Studies by Battelle-Northwest Development Administration, on sediment and radionuclide Division of Biomedical and transport in Columbia River Environmental Research below Priest Rapids Dam.(3)
| |
| U.S. Army Corps of Review of Columbia River and Engineers, North Pacific tributaries water resources.(8)
| |
| Division Washington State Department Water temperature, dissolved of Ecology oxygen, conductivity, color, pH, turbidity, total coliform bacteria and fecal coliform bacteria sampling in the Columbia River at Highway 24 bridge near Vernita (RM 338.1)
| |
| (semimonthly during water year 1972, quarterly during water year 1975, semimonthly since October 1975), and at the Port of Pasco public dock (RM 328.4)
| |
| (semimonthly December 1971 September 1972), and occasional biochemical oxygen demand and streamflow determinations at both sites. Sampling of addi-tional 21 parameters at Vernita bridge during water year 1972.(9)
| |
| U. S. Environmental Miscellaneous water quality Protection Agency measurements in STORET data system for period 1957 to present at following Columbia River locations between McNary and Priest Rapids Dams: RM 292.0 (McNary Dam), 292.4, 292.5, 293.0 324.9 (above mouth of Snake River), 326.3, 328.0 (Kennewick-Pasco railroad bridge), 328.3, 329.0, 330.0 (Kennewick-Pasco State Highway 12 bridge), 334.7 6.3-2
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER A enc Pro ram (below mouth of Yakima River),
| |
| 388.1 (Vernita State Highway 24 bridge), 388.5, 395.5, 395.6, 397.0 (Priest Rapids Dam) .
| |
| 6.3.2 Ecolo ical Parameters A uatic Studies in Pro ress A enc Pro ram Washington Public Power Studies by Battelle-Northwest Supply System in the Columbia River in the vicinity of WNP-2 to systemati-cally collect baseline ecological data on the plankton, benthos, and fish. This pro-gram constitutes the proposed operational monitoring program for WNP-1 and WNP-4, and the preoperational studies for WNP-2.
| |
| Washington Public Power Studies by Battelle-Northwest of Supply System the preoperational baseline data and operational effects of the Hanford Generating Plant near the 100-N Reactor. Current efforts on operational effects are assessing the loss of fish by impingement on the intake screens,<lli12)
| |
| U.S. Energy Research and Annual (since 1947) census of Development Administration, the fall chinook salmon spawn-Division of Biomedical and ing population in the Columbia Environmental Research River between Richland and Priest Rapids Dam, by Battelle-Northwest. Weekly aerial obser-vations have provided data to evaluate the fluctuations in the spawning populations in this section of the river and to examine the relationships between the numbers and pertur-bations in the river.<
| |
| U.S. Energy Research and Investigations by Battelle-Development Administration, Northwest on the combined Division of Biomedical and effects of heat and chemical Environmental Research pollutants on warm and cold water fishes and on fish food 6.3-3
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER A enc Pro ram organisms. These studies are intended to quantify the com-bined effects of thermal insult and chemical stress on the physiology of fish and fish food organisms.(l4)
| |
| U.S. Energy Research and Studies by Battelle-Northwest Development Administration, on the physiological effects of Division of Biomedical and rapid temperature decline on Environmental Research warm and cold water fish and crayfish. The objective of cold shock studies is to define the interactions between biota and the varying hydrographic regimes occurring in thermal mixing zones. following cessation of heated discharges.<>4)
| |
| U.S. Energy Research and Investigations by Battelle-Development Administration, Northwest on the effects of Division of Biomedical and thermal discharge on fish Environmental Research behavior and sensory physiology including sublethal effects that might impair the capacity of a fish to function effectively in its environment.(>4>
| |
| U.S. Energy Research and Studies by Battelle Northwest Development Administration, on the effect of thermal dis-Division of Biomedical and charges on aquatic organisms.
| |
| Environmental Research This project addresses mainly two specific impacts of thermal discharges and their effects:
| |
| gas bubble disease and effects of fatigue on thermal toler-ance.<>>)
| |
| U.S. Energy Research and Studies by Battelle-Northwest Development Administration, on fish behavior in waters whose Division of Biomedical and quality has been altered by Environmental Research various perturbations.
| |
| Emphasis in this work makes use of radio-tracking telemetry to examine the response of fishes encountering such conditions.(14) 6.3-4
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER A enc Pro ram U.S. Army Corps of Study'.es of upstream adult Engineers, Grant County PUD, migrant fish passing Columbia Chelan County PUD River dams. These fish counts are generally made from April to October each year.
| |
| National Marine Fisheries Research on the enhancement of Service downstream passage of juvenile salmonids at Priest Rapids Dam and other PUD dams on the Columbia River.
| |
| 6.3.3 Ecolo ical Parameters Terrestrial Studies in Pro ress A enc Pro ram Washington Public Power Studies by Battelle-Northwest Supply System including characterization of small mammal populations in burned and unburned shrub-steppe plant communities, avi-fauna of shrub-steppe plant communities, ecological charac-terization of burned and unburned shrub-steppe plant communities, primary production of cheatgrass, and aerial photography of shrub-steppe plant communities.
| |
| U.S. Energy Research and A small mammal trapping study Development Administration, by Battelle-Northwest is Division of Biomedical and on the WYE burial ground located Environmental Research immediately west, of the WNP-2 site. This study has been in progress for 2 years and yields information on abundance, age, weight, and sex ratios of great basin pocket mice. (>4)
| |
| U.S. Energy Research and Extensive ecological studies by Development Administration, Battelle-Northwest concerning Division of Biomedical and plant and animal communities Environmental Research have been conducted on the Arid Lands Ecology (ALE) Reserve since 1968. The ALE Reserve is located about 10 miles west of the WNP-2 site.(14) 6.3-5
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER A enc Pro ram U.S. Energy Research and Mule deer fawns have been tagged Development Administration, by Battelle-Northwest along the Division of Biomedical and , Columbia River for a number of Environmental Research years to determine mule deer movements beyond the Hanford Reservation. A nesting survey of the Columbia River Canada goose population has been conducted for nearly 30 years.~14>
| |
| U.S. Energy Research and Radiotracking of coyotes and Development Administration, breeding ecology of raptors Division of Biomedical and and long-billed curlews are Environmental Research currently being studied by Battelle-Northwest on tPe Hanford Reservation. ~
| |
| 6.3.4 Meteorolo ical Monitorin Pro rams in Pro ress A enc Pro ram Washington Public Power Meteorological data collection Supply System at the WNP-2 site by Battelle-Northwest from March 1972 to September 1974 with temporary system and from April 1974 to June 1976 with permanent system. Temporary system measurements included wind speed on 23-ft mast, air tempera-ture and relative, humidity.
| |
| Permanent system measurements included wind speed and air temperature at top of 7-ft mast
| |
| .and at 33-ft level and top of 245-ft tower, dewpoint tempera-ture at the 33-ft level, and precipitation at ground level.
| |
| U.S. Energy Research and The Hanford Meteorological Development Administration, Station, 14 miles west-north-Richland Operations Office west of the WNP-2 site, is operated for ERDA by Battelle-Northwest. This station is manned by an observer-forecaster 24 hours per day. Complete surface weather observations are made hourly. Wind and tempera-ture profiles from the surface 6.3-6 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER A enc Pro ram to 400 ft are monitored con-
| |
| ~v QC j g tinuously.(17~ In addition a network of nine telemetered wind and temperature stations is operated on the Hanford Reservation including the WNP-2 site, and assists in definition of airflow patterns. Micro-meteorological and climatologi-cal records dating from 1944 are available from the ganglord Meteorological Station.<1O>
| |
| U.S. Energy Research and Glimatological measurements of Development Administration, maximum and minimum temperature, Division of Biomedical and humidity, and precipitation are Environmental Research currently being made on ERDA's Arid Lands Ecology Reserve (ALE) by Battelle-Northwest.( 9~ The ALE Reserve lies to the west of WNP-2 U.S. Energy Research and Wind speed and direction are Development Administration, being measured at the site of Division of Production an'd the ERDA's Fast Flux Test Waste Management Facility, 3 miles west of WNP-2 Measurements have been at this location since 1971.
| |
| U.S. Energy Research and Wind speed, direction and Development Administration temperature have been measured at the surface and at the 50 200, and 300-ft levels on a meteorological tower operated by United Nuclear Industries near the N-reactor approximately 19 miles northwest, of the WNP-2 site.(20> This data is not presently collected on a routine basis.
| |
| 6.3.5 Radiolo ical Monitorin Pro rams in Pro ress A enc Pro ram U.S. Energy Research and A comprehensive radiological Development Administration monitoring program for the Hanford plant and surrounding environs is carried out by 6.3-7
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER A enc Pro ram Battelle-Northwest to evaluate the disposition and transloca-tion of Hanford plant-released radionuclides (continuous since before 1960). Table 6.3-1 pro-vides a summary of the program, taken from reference 21, and Figures 6.3-1 and 6.3-2 show sampling locations. Annual reports provide surveillance program details( > and results.(22i23)
| |
| Washington State, Division A state-wide radiological of Social and Health surveillance program is carried Services out by the Radiological Control Unit.(24) Samples of Columbia River water, air, milk and shell-fish are obtained at a number of locations relevant to WNP-2 are shown in Table 6.3-2 and Figure 6.3-3. Results are reported to the Environmental Protection Agency and are pub-lish'ed annually.
| |
| 6.3-8
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 6.3-1 ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE SCHEDULE - 1979 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY T e of Sam le T e of Anal sis W BW M BM Q SA A WATER Columbia River Water Radi oacti vi ty 2 2 Dose Rate 2 Chemical Biological Sanitary Water Radi oacti vi ty 1 Chemi cal 2(a)
| |
| Groundwater Wells Radi oacti vi ty 340 36 Chemi cal 255 40 35 AIR:
| |
| Fil ter s Radi oacti ve Particulates 44 Molecular Sieves Tritium 6 Charcoal Cartridge Radi oi odi nes 10 34 OTHER:
| |
| Radi ati on Level Dose Rate 61 Shoreline Survey Dose Rate 11 Waste Site Survey Radi oacti vi ty 3 ~66 3 Road Survey Radi oacti vi ty 3 Aerial Survey Radi oacti vi ty Railroad Survey Radi oacti vi ty Milk Radi oacti vi ty Fish (Columbia River) Radi oacti vi ty 1 1 Wild Fowl Radi oacti vi ty 2 Mammal s Radi oacti vi ty 10 Soil Radi oacti vi ty 21 Vegetation Radi oacti vi ty 21 Foodstuff s: Meat Radi oacti vi ty 1 1 1 Produce Radi oacti vi ty 5 1 6 II Heal th Foundati on.
| |
| Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 6.3-2 ENV IRONMENTAI RADIATION SURVEILLANCE NETWORK WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION, JUNE 1978:
| |
| Station Code Location Sam le T e Puget Sound PS 0101 Seattle - Smith Tower, Air 0102 Seattle - Boeing Field TLD*
| |
| 0201 Cedar River - Lansberg Surf ace Water 1302 Puyallup River - Puyallup Surf ace Mater 1702 Puget Sound - Bangor Oyster, Sediment 1704 Puget Sound Naval Shipyard - Bremerton Sediment 3201 Olympi a TLD 3301 Edmonds TLD 3401 Bremerton TLD 3501 Bangor TLD 3601 Pack Forest - Lt. Br. of Spring Ground Water 3602 Pack Forest - Rt. Br. of Spring Ground Water 3603 Pack Forest - Ditch below Spring Ground Water 3604 Pack Forest - Ditch 200'phill Ground Water Coastal Peninsula CP 1801 Elma TLD 2401 Port Angeles TLD Southwest SW 0301 Kalama River - Kalama Surface Water 0904 Columbia River - Longview Surf ace Water 0905 Cottonwood Island - Columbia River Sediment 0906 Columbia River - East Shore, Trojan Sediment 1100 Kalama - Sewage Treatment Plant TLD, Soil 2002 Woodland Milk 2100 Kelso - Vision Acres TLD, Soil 3100 Longview, Ocean Beach Substation TLD, Soil 4100 Trojan Plant - Meteorology Tower TLD Northwest NM 0204 Skagit River - Con'crete Surface Water 0501 Skagit County - General Area Milk 1501 Bellingham TLD 1601 Lyman TLD Southcentral SC 0202 Yakima River - Yakima (Parker) Surface Water Northcentral NC 0103 Okanogan River - Malott Surf ace Water 0701 Menatchee - Sewage Treatment Plant TLD
| |
| *Thermoluminescent Dosimeter Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WiMP-2 ER TABLE 6.3-2 (Cont.
| |
| Station Code Location Sam le T e Southeast SE 0011 Hanford - Well 699-17-5 Ground Water 0012 Hanford - Well 699-9-E2 Ground Water 0013 Hanford - Well 699-2-3 Ground Water 0104 Columbia River - Richland Water Surface Water Treatment Plant 0601 Benton County - General Area Milk 0701 Franklin County - General Area Milk 1101 Richland TLD*
| |
| 1201 Hanford - NECO Burial Site - NE Corner TLD, Soil 1202 Hanford - NECO Burial Site - HW Corner TLD, Soil 1203 Hanford - NECO Burial Site - SW Corner TLD, Soil 1204 Hanf ord - NECO Burial Site - SE Corner TLD, Soil 3201 WPPSS-2 - Station 1 TLD, Soil 3202 WPPSS-2 - Station 2 TLD, Soil 3203 WPPSS-2 - Station 3 TLD, Soil 3204 WPPSS-2 - Station 4 TLD, Soil 3208 WPPSS-2 - Station 8 TLD, Soil 3235 WPPSS-2 - Station 35 Sediment 3236 WPPSS-2 - Station 36 Sediment Northeast HE 0101 Spokane - C ity Hall Air 0102 Chattaroy- 20 miles north of Spokane TLD 0103 Spokane TLD 1101 Deer Park- General Area Milk 2101 Sherwood U. Mill - Station A Soil, Air 2103 Sherwood U. Mill - Station C Soil, Air, TLD 2105 Sherwood U. Mill - Station E Air, TLD 2106 Sherwood U. Mill - Station F Air 2107 Sherwood U. Mill - Station G Soil, Air, TLD 2109 Sherwood U. Mill - Rajewski Ranch Soil, Air, TLD 2121 Sherwood U. Nil l - Stati on L1 Sediment 2122 Sherwood U. Mill - Station L2 Sediment 2123 Sherwood U. Mill - Station L3 S. Water, Sediment 2124 Sherwood U. Mill - Blue Creek S. Water 2131 Sherwood U. Mill - Station S1 Ground Water 2132 Sherwood U. Mill - Station S2 Ground Water 2133 Sherwood U. Mill - Station S3 Ground Water 2134 Sherwood U. Mill - Station MWl Ground Water 2135 Sherwood U. Mill - Station NW2 Ground Water 2136 Sherwood U. Mill - Station MW3 Ground Water 2138 Sherwood U. Mill - Station NW5 Ground Water 2139 Sherwood U. Mill - Station MW6 Ground Water
| |
| *Thermoluminescent Dosimeter Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| FLOUTER SECTOR SAMPLING LOCATIONS
| |
| ~ INNER SECTOR SAMPLING LOCATIOiVS HANFORD OTHELLO YAKIMARIVER BOUiVDARY WASHTUCNA A WAHLUKE 82o Q ~. ~ BERG RANCH VERNITA B RIDGE
| |
| + L ~ WAHLUKE ~ CONNELL
| |
| ~ COOKE BROTHERS BARRICADE,'ARRI CADE FIR ROAD RATTLESNAKE' -~ ALE
| |
| $ RRC
| |
| ~ g3 ~ PETIETT SPRINGS BENTON'- - ~ BYERS LANDING CITY ~o RRC
| |
| ~o PASCO
| |
| ~
| |
| SUNNYSIDE RICHLAND AREA WALLAWALLA a MILES WASHINGTOiV 0 10 20 McNARY DAM OREGON 0 16 '32 KILOMETERS Amendment 4, October 1980 HANFORD EiVVIROi]f'IENTAL NASHXNGTON PUBLXC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM AIR SAI'IPLING L'OCATIONS WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 Environmental Report P XG ~ 6. 3-1
| |
| | |
| HANFORD BOUNDARY STATE HIGHWAY 24 VERNITA BRIDGE LIKE LRD
| |
| /
| |
| COLLL'LABIA LOCK
| |
| ~
| |
| RIVER I 1 OLD HANFORD IITIBQ'OOC TOWNSITE
| |
| ''.'A gg YAKlhlA I BARRICADE WYE BAOIOICOIOOY I I I OO IABOIIAIOBY I
| |
| j 1IXhY P ROSSER r BARRICADE BWPPSS I
| |
| STATE Hl GIDVAY j BIO BARRICADE SUIBNYSI DE ERC RICHLAND
| |
| ~ BARRICADE 300 AREA 0 2 4 6 8 EXXON NORTH RICHLAND Ih ILES BENTON CITY
| |
| ': ':II x$ .
| |
| ,
| |
| ViEST ~ !
| |
| I RICHLAND Rl CHIAND '.:;, "I
| |
| ~ AIR SAMPLES, TLD YAKlhLARIVER IPART+ ll hLIUB
| |
| * WATER Amendment 1, May 1978 WASEINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING STATIONS AT WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 HANFORD OPERATED BY DOE Environmental Report FIG 6.3-2
| |
| ~
| |
| | |
| tttt M 0 Q NQ Canada tJp g State of NATCON 0KANOGAN FERRT I Washington I I Department of Social 8, Health 0 4 ~
| |
| ~,
| |
| 3 g':r31 NORTHWEST
| |
| '
| |
| ~ STEVENS p PEIKD ORE ILLE SefvKes 7 o
| |
| ~
| |
| CAtt Jtt It0501 NORT H CENTRAL NORTHEAST'a.0 SNONOtl I SN %9103 STATIOttS) 1 40HCN Atn 2401 I 0P Pp 0 IRNOCT,
| |
| .'ECI 1 101 CLALLAN DOIIGLAS 11@ 0102
| |
| ~
| |
| rt R Pd
| |
| ';~ PUGET
| |
| '
| |
| ~
| |
| OV COASTAL SOUND cs ENELA I PENINSULAR p Q ltt3591 KING 0 ~ 0101 JEFPERSIJI KITSIPVgl 21011 0103 NASOtl I
| |
| I n lptc ~a0201~ I Idaho 070 4f'-~ LINCOLN I I
| |
| SPOKAVE Ocean 0 LP tDA $ NNI I VJII
| |
| @ 1302,.... K I 'I II T AS GRAttr ~
| |
| Pl 3 1 j 0 It 0 It tret
| |
| 'IERCE p
| |
| ~
| |
| I I
| |
| <<p)
| |
| CPSVS NARSOR Q 'I.ill;Si SOUTHEAST TWRSTOII~ p I/l K FRAttK'N 1
| |
| TAKIN K 1 0(:.NANfPRJl .'ART IELDQ PACIFIC 0202 Ettg'RVA ION TTT LENIS SOUTH CENTRAL g 0701 IIANKIAKIINI CONLI'T7 Q c>>~ ASO'l l C)
| |
| SOUTHWEST ~
| |
| ETT Cll K
| |
| 'O'PSIA 0 1 .J l 0301 pp tuC LEAR ITOI
| |
| 'TOI
| |
| /
| |
| I Tct/j SENTON NALLA NA' A I
| |
| I
| |
| /
| |
| CT KLICKITAT I Environmental Radiation CD SKAIIANIA 2%2 I Gl C3 C+ 2100 Surveillance Network H O 3100 CLARK I Oregon Jl¹tt 1978 Q I II100 n
| |
| CD n3 S
| |
| CFI CA3 CD I
| |
| CA3 V)
| |
| | |
| , WNP-2 ER 6.4 Prep erational Environmental Radiolo ical Monitorin Data The data below represents results of samples taken from March, 1978 through June, 1980.
| |
| Sediment Sample Stati on Isoto e Ci/
| |
| Date Number, Co-60 Cs- 37 Other"Garana 5-17-78 35 0.59+0.21 0.36+0.13 < 0.15 5-17-78 36 0.32+0.11 0.38+0.09 <0.15 11-27-78 36 0.38+0.11 0.49+0.09 < 0.15 12-21-78 35 < 0.15 0.22+0.05 <0.15, Zn-65 = 0.37+0.11 7-10-79 35 0.13+0.06 0.31+0.07 < 0.15 7-10-79 36 0.46+0.12 0.42+0.08 < 0.15 11-19-79 35 0.13+0=.06 0.31+0.06 < 0.15 11-19-79 36 0.61+.11 0.48+0.07 < 0.15 5-08-80 35 < 0.15 0.20+0.03 < 0.15 Soil Sample Stati on Isoto e Ci/
| |
| Date Number C s-137 Zn-6 e-59 Other Ganrna 5-08-78 1 0. 5+0.1 < 0.15 <0.26 <0.15 5-08-78 2 <0.15 < 0.15 <0.26 < 0.15 5-08-78 3 0.7+.1 < 0.15 <0.26 <0.15 5-08-78 7 0.50+0.07 < 0.15 <0.26 < 0.15 5-08-78 9 0.14+0.04 < 0.15 <0.26 < 0.15 5-10-79 1 <0.15 < 0.15 5-10-79 2 0.55+0.07 < 0.15 5-10-79 3 0.14+0.03 < 0.15 5-10-79 7 <0.15 < 0.15 5-10-79 9 <0.15 < 0.15 5-08-80 1 1.65+0.14 < 0.15 5-08-80 2 <0.15 < 0.15 5-08-80 3 1.12+0.12 < 0.15 5-08-80 7 1.88+0.14 < 0.15 5-08-80 9 <0.15 < 0.15 Natural K-40 in the soil ranged from 7-14 pCi/g with an average of 10 pCi/g for the, ten (10) samples.
| |
| 6.4-1 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Garden Produce Sampl e Collection Collection Gamma Emitters
| |
| ~TB Site Date ~Ci /
| |
| Chard Pasco '/20/78 <0.08 Chard Pasco 6/20/78 <0.08 Carrots Grandview 6/20/78 <0.08 Apricots Pasco 7/24/78 <0.08 Onions Pasco 7/24/78 <0.08 Cabbage Pasco 7/24/78 <0.08 Apricots Grandview 7/24/78 <0.08 Onions Grandview 7/24/78 <0.08 Beans Grandview 7/24/78 <0.08 Chard Pasco 8/21/78 <0.08 Carrots Pasco , 8/21/78 <0.08 Appl es Pasco 8/21/78 <0. 08 Onions Grandvi ew 8/21/78 <0.08 Appl es Grandvi ew 8/21/78 <0.08 n
| |
| Chard Pasco 9/25/78 <0.08 Carrots Pasco 9/25/78 <0.08 Grapes Pasco 9/25/78 <0.08 Chard Grandvi ew 9/25/78 <0.08
| |
| < 0.08 Car rots Grandvi ew 9/25/78 Tomatoes Grandvi ew 9/25/78 <0.08 Pasco 10/23/78 < 0.08 Chard 10/23/78 < 0.08 Carrots Pasco Pasco 10/23/78 < 0.08 Tomatoes Grandview 10/23/78 < 0.08 Comfrey 10/23/78 < 0.08 Carrots Grandview Grandvi ew 10/23/78 < 0.08 Tomatoes Grandvi 5/22/79 < 0.08 Comf rey ew Lett'uce 5/22/79 < 0.08 Pasco 5/22/79 < 0.13 Onion Pasco
| |
| < 0.08 Strawberry Pasco 5/22/79'/25/79 Carrots Grandview < 0.08 Comf rey Grandvi ew 6/25/79 < 0.08 Cherries Grandview 6/25/79 < 0.08 Chard Pasco 6/25/79 < 0.08 Carrots Pasco 6/25/79 < 0.08 Cherries Pasco 6/25/79 < 0.08 6.4-2 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| 'vlNP-2 ER Garden Produce (Cont.)
| |
| Sample
| |
| ~TB Col 1 ec Site ti on Col 1 ecti on Oate Gamma Ci /i Emitters Apples Pasco 7/29/79 <0.08 Carrots Pasco 7/29/79 <0.08 Peppers Pasco 7/29/79 <0.08 Chard Grandvi ew 7/29/79 <0.08 Carrots Grandview 7/29/79 <0.08 Appl es Grandview 7/29/79 <0.08 Carrots Pasco 8/21/79 <0.08 Cabbage Pasco 8/21/79 <0. 08 Appl es Pasco 8/21/79 <0.08 Tomatoes Grandvi ew 8/21/79 <0. 08 Comf rey Grandvi ew 8/21./7,9 <0.08 Apples Pasco 9/18/79 <0. 08 Cabbage Pasco 9/18/79 <0.08 Carrots Pasco 9/18/79 <0.08 Tomatoes Grandview ,9/18/79 <0.08 Chard Grandvi ew 9/18/79 <0.08 Carrots Grandview 9/18/79 <0.08 Turnip Tops Pasco 5/08/80 <0.08 Oni on Pasco 5/08/80 <0.08 Comfrey G r andvi ew 5/08/80 <0.08 Onion Grandview 5/08/80 <0.08 Swiss Chard Pasco 6/23/80 <0.08 Beets Pasco 6/23/80 <0.08 Comfrey Grandvi ew 6/23/80 <0.08 Beets Grandvi ew 6/23/80 <0.08 6.4-3 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Fish Sampl e Stati on Date ~Sec i ea Ci/ wet Other Co-60 Cs-137 Fe-59 Zn-65 Gamma Col umbi a 4/26/78 Sucker <0.13 <0.13 0.26 <0.26 <0.13 Snake 4/26/78 Trout <0.13 <0.13 0.26 <0.26 (0.13 Col umbi a 4/26/78 Squawf is h <0.13 <0.13 0.26 (0.26 <0.13 Col umbi a 4/26/78 Salmon <0.13 <0.13 0.26 <0.26 <0.13 Col umbi a 4/26/78 Carp <0.13 <0.13 0.26 (0.26 <0.13 Snake 10/24/78 Trout <0.13 (0.13 0.26 <0.26 (0.13 Columbia 10/20/78 Salmon <0.13 (0.13 0.26 (0.26 <0.13 Columbi a 10/20/78 Salmon (0.13 <0.13 0.26 <0.26 <0.13 Columbi a 10/20/78 Salmon <0.13 <0.13 0.26 <0.26 <0.13
| |
| . Col umbi a 10/20/78 Catf ish (0.13 (0.13 0.26 <0.26 <0.13 Col umbi a 4/25/79 Salmon (0.13 (0.13 <0.13 <0.13 Columbia 4/25/79 Salmon <0.13 (0.13 <0.13 <0.13 Col umbi a 4/25/79 Trout <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 Columbi a 4/25/79 Trout <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 Snake 4/25/79 Trout <0.13 (0.13 <0.13 <0.13 Col umbi a 10/29/79 Whitefish (0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 Snake 10/30/79 Steelhead <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 Columbi a 4/23/80 Whi tef ish <0.13 <0.13 -<0.13 <0.13 Columbi a 4/23/80 Whitefish (0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 Columbi a 4/23/80 'hitefish (0.13 (0.13 <0.13 <0.13 Col umbi a 4/23/80 Whi tef i sh <0.13 (0.13 <0.13 <0.13 Snake 4/21/80 Steelhead <0.13 (0.13 <0.13 (0.13 Well Water Sample ~Ci/t Stati on Date Tritium WNP-2 Well j"3 11/19/78 380+340 Direct Radiation Direct radiation measurements were made during this period using thermo-lumi nescence dosimeters (TLD) at twenty-five (25) stations around the site.
| |
| The results of these measurements were 0.25+0.03 mrem/day.
| |
| : 6. 4-4 Amendment 4 October 1980
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER CHAPTER 7 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS 7.1 STATION ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADIOACTIVITY The postulated accidents discussed in this chapter are also found in the Safety Analysis Report. In keeping with the over-all objective of the Environmental Report, the assumptions used to analyze these accidents are conservative but more realistic than the very conservative assumptions utilized in the Safety Analysis Report. In this chapter credence is given to the correct design, manufacture and operation of the reactor safe-guards system. Both the probability of occurrence and the consequences of the postulated accidents are reviewed.
| |
| The spectrum of accidents, ranging in severity from trivial to very serious, is divided into classes. These classes are shown in Table 7.1-1. Each class is characterized by an oc-currence rate and a set of consequences.
| |
| To determine the resultant doses from each accident, the annual average atmospheric dispersion parameter, X/Q was calculated using one year of onsite meteorological data. The X/Q values as a function of distance and sector are shown in Table 5.2-3.
| |
| The analytical models used to calculate the doses for each of the accidents found in this chapter are discussed in detail in Reference l.
| |
| 7.1.1 Class 1 Trivial Incidents These incidents are included and evaluated under routine re-leases in Section 5.2.
| |
| 7.1.2 Class 2 Small Release Outside Containment These incidents are included and evaluated under routine re-leases in Section 5.2.
| |
| 7.1.3 Class 3 Radwaste S stem Failure Events identified for consideration in this category are those resulting from inadvertent pumping of a liquid radwaste storage tank to the blowdown line (considered an operator error) as well as failure of the drain seal on the offgas system. While these events do not result in appreciable offsite exposures they typify events and consequences which may be expected to occur infrequently as a consequence of normal operation. More serious failures of the radwaste systems are postulated and described under Class 8 events.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 7.1.3.1 Li uid Radwaste S stem Leaka e A radwaste tank is assumed to be inadvertently pumped to the blowdown line as a result of one of the following single operator errors:
| |
| : l. the operator commences pumping without taking a batch sample;
| |
| : 2. a batch sample is misinterpreted or the results are incorrectly communicated to the operator; or-
| |
| : 3. the operator, notified of an acceptable batch sample pumps the wrong tank.
| |
| However, when this occurs, the high radiation alarm on the liquid effluent monitor will signal the valve on the discharge to close if concentrations are in excess of those allowed by technical specifications; thus any release is con-trolled to levels allowed during normal operation.
| |
| 7.1.3.2 Off as S stem Leaka e (OGSL)
| |
| Examination of the offgas system equipment indicates that the most likely source of potential release, other than the normal effluent path, is leakage through the drain lines. These drain lines are close to the inlet and outlet of the holdup pipe and normally have a water seal to prevent gaseous leaks. For this
| |
| : case, lost.
| |
| it is assumed that the water seal for the inlet drain is 7.1.3.2.1 Estimated Release A 60,000 pci/sec off-gas release rate -at 30 minutes is equiva-lent to 270,000 pci/sec at 2 minutes. Correlating the ratio of drain line to holdup pipe diameters to flow rates results in approximately 4.0% of the 2 minute old mix (10,800 pci/sec) being released. This release continues for 4 hours until the leak is sensed by radiation monitors and corrected by operator action. The resultant total release is 155 curies.
| |
| 7.1.3.2.2 Estimated Dose The dose calculation for this event is shown in Table 7.1-2.
| |
| 7.1.3.2.3 Probabilit Considerations The water seal is a passive device which holds water and is inherently simple and reliable. Three failure modes have been identified:
| |
| : l. the water can evaporate, 7~1 2
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER
| |
| : 2. the water seal can be overpressurized,
| |
| : 3. the water can leak through a faulty "drain.
| |
| Although the failure of the water seal is unlikely, it is 7.1.11).
| |
| nevertheless p"aced in the upset category (Section 7.1.4 Class 4 Fission Products to Primar S stem Events which lead to the release of activity into the primary system are a result o transitory stress which exceeds the mechanical properties of the cladding material.
| |
| 7.1.4.1 Fuel Cladding Defects Random cladding defects are allowed for in design and are included and evaluated in Section 5.2.4.2 under normal operation.
| |
| 7.1.4.2 Offdesi n Transients that Induce Fuel Failures Above Those Ex ected The plant design criteria includes the requirement that any anticipated transient event concomitant with a single equip-ment malfunction or single operator error must not result in a minimum critical power ratio (MCPR) less than 1.06 for any normal p yet operating mode. Since the design basis cor-relation used in determination of the CP is conservatively selected with a large margin between predicted and observed CP, fuel which experiences a MCPR of 1.06 is not likely to have cladding failure. It is, therefore, concluded that there are no offdesign transients other than the control rod drop accident identified in section 7.1.8.3, which induce fuel failure above that normally expected.
| |
| : 7. 1. 5 Class 5 Fission Products to Secondar S stem In the direct cycle BWR, "secondary system" is interpreted to mean the secondary side of heat exchangers whose primary side contains primary system coolant. The BWR system has several heat exchangers in this category:
| |
| : l. main turbine condenser,
| |
| : 2. RHR heat exchangers,
| |
| : 3. drywell cooler heat exchanger,
| |
| : 4. spent fuel storage heat exchang r.
| |
| All of these heat exchangers are operated in a mode the or employ release of an intermediate heat exchanger which precludes activity to the environment. The main condenser is protected 7.1-3 Amendment 1 Nay 1978
| |
| | |
| NNP-2 ER during plant, operation by the normal vacuum. The drywell, and spent fuel heat exchangers are protected by being cooled with a closed cooling loop, the RHR heat exchangers are pro-tected by being cooled by the cooling towers or spray pond.
| |
| Xn addition during shutdown cooling the cooling water side is maintained at a higher pressure to prevent. any out leakages to the Cooling System.
| |
| 7.1.6 Class 6 - Refuelin Accidents (FUHA)
| |
| The fuel bundle is the heaviest, object which could be dropped onto the core during normal refueling operations. The fuel bundle drop is postulated to occur as a result of equipment failure during the refueling process and occurs within the reactor cavity above the core.
| |
| 7.1.6.1 Estimated Release The following parameters are used to determine the amount of activity released to the environment.
| |
| : 1. The accident occurs four days after shutdown.
| |
| : 2. 8 fuel rods are damaged.
| |
| '3. A water partition factor of 10 3 is used for iodine.
| |
| : 4. SGTS filter efficiency is 99.9% for all forms of iodine and 0$ for noble gases.
| |
| : 5. The volumetric leak rate from the reactor building is 100%/day.
| |
| : 7. 1. 6. 1. 2 Estimated Dose The dose calculated for this accident is shown in Table 7.1-2.
| |
| 7.1.6.1.3 Probabilit Considerations See subsection 7.1.7.1.3.
| |
| 7.1.7 Class 7 S ent Fuel Handlin Accident.
| |
| Spent fuel handling accidents are of two essential types:
| |
| dropping a fuel bundle onto the fuel in the fuel storage area, and dropping a spent fuel cask. The fuel bundle drop accident is a design basis accident; the cask drop accident is not ex-peated to result in fuel damage.
| |
| 7.1.7.1 Fuel Assembl Dro in Fuel Stora e Pool (FUHA)
| |
| This accident is postulated to occur while a fuel'undle is 7.1-4
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER being transferred or suspended over the spent fuel storage pool.
| |
| 7.1.7.1.1 Estimated Releases h
| |
| y4 The following parameters are used to determine the amount of activity released to the environment.
| |
| : 1. The accident, occurs four days after shutdown.
| |
| : 2. 8 fuel rods are damaged.
| |
| : 3. A water partition factor of 10 3 is used for iodine.
| |
| : 4. SGTS filter efficiency is 99.9% for all forms of iodine and 0% for noble gases.
| |
| : 5. The volumetric leak rate from the reactor building is 100%/day.
| |
| 7.1.7.1.2 Estimated Dose The dose calculated for this accident is shown in Table 7.1-2.
| |
| 7.1.7.1.3 Probabilit Considerations For this accident to occur, either the hoist must go out of control or one of the supporting components must fail. For the hoist to go out of control, the limit switch must fail to decelerate the bundle's falling rate. The probability of either of these events occurring would constitute a fault con-dition (see Section 7.6.11). A random failure of the cable grapple, handle, or tie rod would be no more likely than an emergency condition and is probably closer to a fault con-dition. Since there is less than one chance in four that such a failure could occur while the fuel is at the maximum height above the core, the combined event is no more likely than a fault condition for each bundle transferred. Assuming that one-fourth of the core is transferred each year, the likelihood of the event becomes that of an emergency condition. (See Section 7.1.11) 7.1.7.2 Fuel Cask Dro (FCDA)
| |
| Design of the fuel storage pool and cask transfer hatch pre-cludes the cask from being moved over the fuel storage pool.
| |
| Consequently, the worst accident occurs when a fully loaded spent fuel cask becomes detached from its lifting mechanism and falls a distance of 99 feet onto the yielding surface of a railroad flatcar. The rail car is in position under the cask while it is being lowered thus providing a yielding type of impact surface. (The 10CFR 71 cask drop accident is 30 feet onto a non-yielding impact surface.)
| |
| 7.1-5
| |
| | |
| NNP-2 ER
| |
| : 7. 1. 7. 2. 1 Estimated Release The cask is loaded with a maximum of 24 fuel bundles which have been out of the reactor for at least 90 days. The cask closure head will remain intact upon impact with the yielding surface of the rail car. No fuel damage or fission preduct release is expected. However, for the purpose of analysis, it is assumed that 1000 Ci of nobile gas are released as per 10CFR 71 criteria.
| |
| 7.1.7.2.2 Estimated Dose The dose calculated for this accident is shown in Table 7.1-2.
| |
| 7.1.7.2.3 Probabilit Considerations By inferring a frequency of occurrence from other crane ac-cidents, the cask drop accident should be placed in the emer-gency category (Section 7.1.11).
| |
| 7.1.8 Class 8 Accident Initiation Events Considered in Desi n-Bass.s Eva'lu'ati'o'n''a.n'he Safet. Anal sz.s'e ort, These events are described in chapter 15 of the Safety Analysis Report and are briefly outlined in the following paragraphs.
| |
| Included are the inside containment loss-of-coolant accident (recirculation pipe break) the outside containment loss-of-coolant accident (steam line break), and the reactivity ex-cursion accident (control rod drop). Two non-design-basis accidents (catastrophic failures of a liquid radwaste tank and of the offgas holdup system) are also treated here.
| |
| The design-basis refueling accident falls in Class 7 and is reviewed in 7.1.7.1.
| |
| 7.1.8.1 Loss of Coolant Accident '(LOCA)
| |
| A sudden circumferential break is assumed to occur in a recir-culation line, permitting the discharge of coolant into the primary containment from both sides of the break. Concurrent with this failure, a single active component failure is assumed to occur. This additional failure can occur to the HPCS diesel generator or the standby diesel generator.
| |
| 7.1.8.1.1 Estimated Release To calculate a realistic core heatup following a LOCA, the re-sults of parametric studies were applied to the standard core heatup models currently in use (4).
| |
| 7.1-6
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The approach in the thermal-hydraulic analysis was to select values for those key assumptions normally used in 'ealistic the Safety Analysis Report in which very conservative estimates are made. Other assumptions which are of lesser significance use values as described in the SAR or in NRC regulatory guides.
| |
| Where parameters are not specifically mentioned, NRC assumptions, whose inherent conservatism has been well documented, have been employed. Peak clad temperatures were calculated for a spect-rum of break sizes.
| |
| The realistic analysis shows no heatup of fuel into the per-foration range. The parameters used to predict the activity released to the environment are:
| |
| : l. no fuel rods are damaged,
| |
| : 2. fission products released are a result of coolant activity and spiking activity from reactor shutdown,
| |
| : 3. primary containment leak rate is 0.5% per day,
| |
| : 4. reactor building leak rate is'00% per day,
| |
| : 5. plateout and condensation effects are assumed to reduce the source term by a factor of 4,
| |
| : 6. standby gas treatment system filter efficiency is 99.9% for X2 and CH3X and 0% for noble gases.
| |
| 7.1.8.1.2 Estimated Dose The dose calculated for this accident is shown in Table 7.1-2.
| |
| 7.1.8.1.3 Probabilit Considerations Based on estimates of pipe failure rates contained in the literature and on the number of pipes that satisfy the con-ditions for a large break design basis accident, the pro-bability of a large break is within the range of an emergency condition (See Section 7.1.11.)
| |
| The probability that an HPCS diesel generator will be unable to start when desired should also fall within the range of an emergency condition based on an analysis using failure rates from references 5, 6, and 7 considering anticipated downtime and the interval between HPCS diesel tests.
| |
| Since each probability is low and the outcomes are not criti-cally interdependent, the joint probability of pipe break and HPCS failure is expected to be very low so as to place this event in the fault condition. (See Section 7.1.11).
| |
| 7~1 7
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 7.1.8.2 . Steam Line Break Accident (SLBA)
| |
| The postulated accident is a sudden circumferential severance of one main steam line outside the containment. This results in steam being released to the steam tunnel and the turbine
| |
| 'building.
| |
| 7.1.8.2.1 Estimated Release The mass of coolant released during the 4 second isolation valve closure time is 23,000 pounds of steam. Because there is no fuel damage during this accident, the iodine released to the turbine building is proportional to the amount of steam re-leased.
| |
| Based on past BWR operating experience, the I-131 coolant activity is assumed to be 0.005 pci/gm with corresponding amounts .of I-132 and I-135.
| |
| 7.1.8.2.2 Estimated Dose The dose calculated for this accident is shown in Table 7.1-2.
| |
| 7.1.8.2.3 Probabilit Considerations The design basis main steam line break accident postulated complete severance of one of the main steam lines while the reactor is at power followed by total isolation of the break within four seconds. The probability of this event is es-sentially the probability of the severance. Based upon esti-mates of pipe failure rates contained in the literature(8) and considering the number of locations where the rupture could occur in the main steam system, the probability of pipe sever-ance should be well within the "emergency category" (See Sec-tion 7.1.11.)
| |
| 7.1.8.3 Control Rod Dro Accident (CRDA)
| |
| The postulated accident is a reactivity excursion caused by accidental removal of a control rod from the core at a rate more rapid than can be achieved by the use of the control rod drive mechanism. In. the CRDA, a fully inserted control rod is assumed to fall out of the core after becoming disconnected from its drive and after the drive has been removed to the fully withdrawn position. The design of the control rod velocity limiter limits the free fall velocity to 3 ft/sec.
| |
| Based on this veloce.ty and- assuming the reactor is at full power, the maximum rod worth is approximately 1$ , resulting in the perforation of less than 10 rods.
| |
| : 7. 1-8 Amendment 5 July 1981
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The activity released from the 10 rods is insufficient to cause a radiation level high enough to trip the main steam line isolation valves. However, it is high enough to cause isolation of the offgas system For the purpose of evaluating the consequences of this accident, it is assumed that 100%
| |
| of the noble gases and 1% of the iodine activity released from the failed fuel rods is transferred to the condenser.
| |
| Since the offgas system and ultimately the reactor vessel are isolated, it is assumed that the condenser activity achieves an equilibrium condit'on between the condensate and the free volume and is released unfiltered to the environment at a rate of 0.25% of the condenser free volume per day.
| |
| 7.1.8.3.2 Estimated Dose The dose calculated for this accident is shown in Table 7.1-2.
| |
| 7.1.8.3.3 Probability Consideration For a rod drop accident to occur the control rod must first become detached from the drive, remain lodged in position while the drive is fully withdrawn from the core, and then, become disloged and fall freely. This complex series of events is offset by the many annunciators and procedures that are meant to avoid such an event, for example: rods are tested weekly, thus providing many opportunities for a uncoupled rod to be detected.
| |
| Actual experience has been good. However, conservative judgement indicates that this event should be assigned as an emergency condition (See Section 7.1.11).
| |
| 7.1.8.4 Li uid Radwaste Tank Accident (LRTA)
| |
| The postulated accident is assumed to occur as a result of a catastrophic failure of the waste storage tanks. The design of the radwaste building precludes the release of liquid radwaste. The liquid contents of the tanks will be contained by an unlined 18-inch high concrete dike around the radwaste tank area. This dike can contain in excess of 80% of the total liquid inventory of all the tanks.
| |
| : 7. l. 8. 4. 1 Estimated Releases The liquid radwaste tanks are not pressurized nor are they kept at a high temperature. Nevertheless, because of evaporation, it is assumed that 0.5% of the iodines become airborne and are released to the environment.
| |
| 7.1.8.4.2 Estimated Dose The resultant doses for this accident are shown in Table 7 ~ 1 2 ~
| |
| : 7. 1-9 Amendment 1 Hay 1978
| |
| | |
| 7.1.8.4.3 Probabilit Considerations Although the below grade liquid radwaste tanks are unpres-surized accumulators, they are designed in accordance with the appropriate ASME codes. There are no other parts other than piping attached to the tanks. Therefore, the probability of a radwaste tank failure is so low as to place category (See Section 7.1.11).
| |
| it in the fault 7.1.8.5 OffGas S stem Accident (OGSA)
| |
| The postulated accident for this category is the failure of a charcoal tank in the offgas system. The tank with the largest noble gas inventory is assumed to fail and spill the contents of the tank.
| |
| 7.1.8.5.1 Estimated Release The activity inventories of the offgas system are based on an offgas release rate of 60,000 microcuries per second for noble gas and on a reactor water coolant concentration of .005 microcuries per gram for I-131, with 2% steam cherry over, and a condenser decontamination factor of 7.2' 10 . Itofisthealso assumed that 5% of the noble gas inventory and 0.5%
| |
| iodine inventory are released.
| |
| These .release fractions are based on evaluation of the retention characteristics of charcoal for spillage of the entire contents of the tank.
| |
| 7.1.8.5.2 Estimated Dose The dose calculated for this accident is shown in Table 7.1-2.
| |
| 7.1.8.5.3 Probabilit Consideration The offgas system is designed and constructed in accordance with appropriate ASME codes. In the unlikely event that the tank fails only a small fraction of the contents would be released to the environment. The probability of such an oc-currence is so low as to classify a release to the environment in the fault category (See Section 7.1.11).
| |
| 7.1.9 Trans ortation Accidents Accidents in this category have no significant impact on the environment, however, they are discussed for the purpose of completeness of this report.
| |
| 7.1.9.1 Shi ment of S ent Fuel An evaluation by the AEC of the frequency of accidents in-volving the shipment of high level radioactive wastes shows
| |
| : 7. 1-10
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER that, on the average, approximately 0.05 accidents may occur in trggsportation during the lifetime of a light water re-actor<">. In addition to the very low occurrence rate of accidents, the consequences of an accident involving radioactive material are mitigy)~p by the procedures which carriers are required to follow' '. These procedures include: separation of persons from packages or materials and immediate notification of the shipper and DOT in case of an accident, fire, or leaking package. Therefore, in the unlikely event an accident occurs, the radiological exposures will be limited to a relatively small number of persons and does not present any concern to the general population.
| |
| 7.1.9.2 Low Level Radwaste Shi ments The only time a radiological exposure could be received in radwaste shipment is for the case of an accident involving the solid waste containers. These containers usually contain a very "stiff" or viscous slurry or are actually mixed with polymer and catalyst to form a solid. Such exposures would be minor and would be limited to those workers involved in any necessary cleanup following the accident. The effect to the population is judged to be insignificant.
| |
| 7.1.9.3 New Fuel Shipment New fuel is normally shipped by rail in containers designed to protect them from physical damage due to. the normal handling and vibration of-transportation. Because new fuel contains practically no fission products or radioactive gases, the results for an accident, even be damaged, would be limited to an economic loss.
| |
| if the fuel should 7.1.10 Su~a'r~ of Radiolo ical Effects of Accidents The radiological effects of each of the accidents evaluated in Chapter 7 are shown in Table 7.12. Also shown for the purpose of comparison, is the average normal background and man made radiation exposures. When compared to background and manmade exposure it. is clear that the exposure received by the population as a result of postulated accident is extremely small.
| |
| 7.1.11 Prob'abi'li:t A'ssessment In Reference 11, the Commission requires that "in the consid-eration of the environmental risks due to postulated accidents, the probabilities of their occurrence must . . . be taken into account."
| |
| Consideration of the yearly probabilities of abnormal conditions is necessary to an assessment of environmental risk for to the obvious, reason that such conditions are not expected occur 7 ~ 1 11 Amendment 1
| |
| ~Iay 1978
| |
| | |
| rÃNP 2 ER as often as once a year or even once in a plant lifetime. Com-parison of accident exposures with the man-rems per year fully expected from natural sources and normal operation of the plant operation of the plant requires that the former be weighted by their annual frequencies in order to predict an average an-nual effect. It will be noted, however, that the forgoing analyses have concentrated principally on prediction of expo-sures iven the occurrence of the accident and have factored in the probability of the event, in the overall dose affect.
| |
| The reason for this treatment is two-fold.
| |
| : 1. It emphasizes due the fact that to the accidents are in radiological exposures fact exceedingly low in themselves, without, additionally complicating the issue with probabilities;
| |
| : 2. The "classes" of accidents tend to be less homogeneous in their probabilities than in their releases; thus, to propose a two-significant figure probability as "typical" of a class would be not only inaccurate but misleading as well.
| |
| 7.1.11.1 Probabilit Cate pries To alleviate the problem of inhomogeneity mentioned above, the probability of occurrence of each "class" of accidents and in-cidents has been placed in a broad probability category about two decades wide. The system chosen for this categorization is derived from Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.,These classes "are used by the General Electric Company in design 'safety analyses and have appeared in safety analysis reports for several stations. A brief semi-quantita-tive description of each class is given below.
| |
| 7.1.11.1.1 Normal Condition (P = 1)
| |
| A normal condition is any planned and scheduled event that is the result of deliberate plant operation according to pre-scribed procedures.
| |
| 7.1.11.1.2 U set Condition (1 > P >2.5x10 )
| |
| An upset condition is a deviation from normal conditions that has a moderate probability of occurring during a 40 - year plant lifetime. These conditions typically do not preclude subsequent
| |
| .plant operation.
| |
| 7.1.11.1.3 Emer enc Condition (2.5x10 > P > 2.5x10 )
| |
| An emergency condition is a deviation from normal plant operation that has a low probability of occurring during a 40-year plant lifetime. Emergency condition events are typified by transients
| |
| : 7. 1-12
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER caused by a multiple valve blowdown of the reactor vessel or a pipe rupture of an auxiliary system.
| |
| 7.1.11.1.4 Fault Condition (2.5x10 > P > 2.5xl0 )
| |
| A fault condition is a deviation from normal conditions that has an extremely low probability, of occurring during a 40-year plant lifetime. These postulated events include, but are not limited to, the most drastic that must be designed against (the limiting design bases).
| |
| 7.1.11.2 Basis for Probabilit Estimation The occurrences described in this analysis are of such a nature that their frequencies cannot be derived from historical data.
| |
| The nuclear industry is too young to have accumulated much in-formation even on the most frequent events. The events with the more serious consequences are not likely to occur and historical data is not possible.
| |
| As a result, probabilities on most events must be inferred from our knowledge of other events. Table 7.1-3 is a listing of event descriptions and their associated probabilities as reported in the literature. These findings, reinforced by individual modeling studies of the postulated events specified in this analyses, lead to the assignment of each occurrence to one of the four probability categories described in Section 7.1-3. As a point of reference, Table 7.1-4 is in-cluded which gives some mortality statistics experienced in the U.S.A.
| |
| It must be emphasized that the probability assignment is one of judgement, and can never be proven. However, the broad classification of probability ranges and the assignment of each event to a category does quantify the best that is known about the relative frequency of occurrence of many events and is informative and useful on a comparative basis.
| |
| : 7. 1-13
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7.1-1 REACTOR FACILITY CLASSIFICATION OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS AND OCCURRENCES NO. OF CLASS DESCRIPTION AEC EXAMPLE (S) PLANT DESIGN-ANALYSES Trivial Incidents Small spills None Small leaks inside containment Misc. Small Releases Spills Reactor Coolant leaks (below or Outside Containment Leaks and Pipe breaks just above allowable tech spec limits) outside primary cont-tainment or plant boundary Radwaste System Equipment Failure Any Single Equipment Failure or Failures Serious malfunction Any Single Operator Error or human error Events that Release Fuel Failures during Fuel Failures during transients Radioactivity into the normal operation outside the normal range of plant Primary System Transients outside variables but within expected expected range of range of protective equipment and variables other parameter operation Events that Release Class 4 and Heat Ex- Primary Coolant loop to auxiliary Radioactivity into changer Leak cooling system Secondary side of Secondary System heat exchanger leak Refueling Accidents Drop fuel element Dropping of fuel assembly on Inside Containment Drop heavy object onto reactor core, spent fuel rack, or fuel Mechanical mal- against pool boundary function or loss of cooling in transfer tube
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7.1-1 (continued)
| |
| NO. OF CLASS DESCRIPTION AEC EXAMPLE (S) PLANT DESIGN-ANALYSES Accidents to Spent. Drop Fuel element Dropping of fuel assembly on Fuel outside Drop heavy object spent fuel in refueling storage Containment onto fuel pool Drop shielding cask loss of cooling to Dropping of spent fuel cask shipping cask on site Transportation accident on site Accident Initiation Reactivity Transient a. Reactivity Transient Events considered in Rupture of Primary Design-Basis piping b. Loss of Reactor Coolant evaluation in the Flow Decrease Steam- inside or outside primary Safety Analysis line break containment Report
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7.1-2 RADIATION EXPOSURE
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| EA-REM INTEGRATED WHOLE BODY EXPOSURE, PERSON-REM DISTANCE (MILES) 1.2 5.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 SOURCE
| |
| : 1) NATURAL (PER YEAR) 1. 4E-01 1.8E 01 1.8E 03 1.5E 04 2.2E 04 2.8E 04 3.7E 04
| |
| : 2) MANMADE (PER YEAR) 1.0E-01 1.3E 01 1.3E 03 1.1E 04 1.6E 04 2.0E 04 2.7E 04
| |
| : 3) EVENT CLASS OGSL 3 3. 1E-.06 5.3E-05 2.5E-03 8.5E-03 9.7E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-02 FUMA 6/7 5.3E-07 1.6E-05 1.2E-03 5.5E-03 6.5E-03 7.0E-03 7.6E-03 FCDA 7 1.4E-07 4.2E-06 3.1E-04 1.5E-03 1.8E-03 1.9E-03 2.2E-03 LOCA 8 1.8E-07 5.3E-06 3.7E-04 1.1E-03 2.3E-03 2.4E-03 2.6E-03 SLBA 8 2.5E-07 6.2E-06 3.2E-04 1.1E-03 1.2E-03 1.3E-03 1.4E-03 CRDA 8 5.4E-10 1.6E-08 1.2E-06 5.6E-06 6.4E-06 7.3E-06 8.0E-06 LRIA 8 4.4E-09 1.1E-07 6.1E-06 2.0E-05 2.1E-05 2.2E-05 2.4E-05 OGSA 8 1.1E-06 5.0E-05 1.9E-03 8.4E-03 9.8E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-02
| |
| * Exclusion Area (EA) Individual Dose For Duration of Event
| |
| ** Integrated over year 2020 population estimate (see Table 2.1-1) for each area; ie:
| |
| 0-5 mile radius, 0-10 mile radius, etc.
| |
| *9* Refers to that manmade background radiation not associated with WNP-2 (medical, television, industry, etc.).
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 7.1-3 TABLE OF EVENT PROBABILITIES EVENT PROBABILITY SOURCE Reactivity Fault at Power 10 2/year 12 Emergency Injection .System Failure 10 2/demand 13 Reactor Bldg. Atmosphere Washing and Cooling System Failure 10 2/demand 13 Core Spray System Failure 2.lx10 3 to 5.2x10-2/demand 12 Operator Error 10 2 to 10 3/operation 14 Diesel Generator Unavailability 0.004 years/year 15 Loss of Load >10 3/year 16 Excessive Load Increase >10-3/year 16 Loss of One Feedwater Pump >10 3/year 16 Loss of Flow (one pump) >10 3/year 16 Primary System Pipe Rupture 10 3/year 13 Failure to Isolate Containment 10 3/year 15 Core-Flooding System Failure 10 3/demand 13 Operator Error 10 2 to 10 4/trial 17 Reactivity Fault at Startup 10 4/year 12 Instrument Part, Rupture 5xlO 4/year 12 Pipe Severence Rate 6.3x10 4/year/plant 18 Reactor Shutdown System Failures 10-5/demand 13 Failure to Tri.p Reactor 7x10 5/demand 15 Emergency Power Unavailability 2xlO 5years/year 15 Large Aircraft Crashing into Reactor 5 mi. from Airport 2.4xlO 6/year 18 Failure to Trip Reactor 2xlO 7/demand 16 Truck Accident Rate (severe) 5xl0 7/mile 14,18
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 7.1-4
| |
| 'SONE lJ.S'.''ACCIDENTAL DEATH STATISTICS
| |
| 'OR '1'9'7'3: '(Ref. 21)
| |
| PROBABILITY ACCIDFNT TOTAL DEATHS DEATH/PERSON/YR Notor vehicle 54,700 2.7 x 10 4 Falls 17,900 8.7 x 10 Fire 6,700 3.2 x 10-5 Drowning 7,300 3.5 x 10 Poisoning 5,100 2.5 x 10 Firearms 2,400 1.2 x 10 Cataclysm* 155 8.0 x 10 Lightning* 110 5.5 x 10
| |
| * Reference 21 (1966 statistics)
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 7.2 OTHER ACCIDENTS The environmental effects of accidents not related to the release of radioactive materials are considered in this section. Accidents which fall into this category include the spill or leakage of chemicals (caustic or acid), gaseous releases (hydrogen or chlorine), fires within the plant fence-line, and fuel oil spillage from oil storage or transfer operations. The probability of accidents of this nature happening is small and the Supply System will take all necessary actions to prevent the occurrence of such ac-cidents. The proper training of operating personnel, the specification of detailed procedures to be used in handling the materials and the proper design of equipment are all positive steps to be used by the Supply System in preventing such accidents. In addition, these same steps will assist in mitigating the effects of an accident if it does occur.
| |
| The primary environmental impact to be considered is the ef-fect on the Columbia River. Other areas of possible impact are the groundwater, land, and air in the vicinity of the plant. The environmental effects of the postulated accidents on each of these areas are discussed below.
| |
| 7.2.1 Li uid Chemical S ill Accidents The only two chemicals which are used in reasonably large quantities in the plant are caustic (sodium hydroxide) and acid (sulphuric acid).
| |
| The caustic and acid will be transported to the site in chemical tank trucks which conform to applicable Department of Transportation regulations. The chemicals will be pumped via an outside hose connected to phenolic lined steel storage tanks in their respective buildings. The acid is stored in a 6,000 gallon tank in the circulating water pump house (for neutralizing the circulating water alkalinity) and in a 5,000 gallon tank in the service building (for regeneration of the make-up demineralizers). The caustic is also stored in a 5,000 gallon tank in the service building for use in regeneration of the demineralizers. Two 200 gallon tanks, one in the reactor building and one in the radwaste building contain acid for general neutralizing uses. The radwaste building also has a 200 gallon- tank of caustic for general neutralizing uses. The 200 gallon tanks will be filled from smaller containers which are transported to the buildings by hand pulled carts.
| |
| Any spillage of the chemicals during storage or transfer operations in the buildings are collected in sumps, neutralized and disposed of harmlessly through the normal chemical waste treatment process stream (see Section 3.6).
| |
| 7~2 1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Hence, the loss of these chemicals will not have an adverse impact on the environment.
| |
| 7.2.2 Gaseous Release Accidents The only two gases which are stored in sufficient quan-tities to have an effect on the environment are hydrogen and chlorine. Hydrogen is used in the generator cooling system and chlorine is used for water purification and as a biocide.
| |
| Hydrogen will be transported to the site in standard gas bottles, each containing 140 standard cubic feet (scf).
| |
| Eight bottles of hydrogen are stored in the bottle storage building 367 feet north of the turbine generator building and 563 feet north of the reactor building. The hydrogen is piped to the turbine generator building via an underground pipe. The gas transfer pipe is con-tained in a larger shielding pipe to insure the integrity of the transfer pipe. In the event of an explosion, any resulting fire would not spread since the fenced plant area is devoid of flammable material (see Subsection 7.2.3).
| |
| Liquefied chlorine is transported to the site in one ton and 150 lb bottles. Ten one ton bottles are stored in the chlorine storage room in the circulating water pump-house building with all of the bottles hooked up to the manifold, however, only one bottle outlet valve will be opened at a time in order to minimize the amount of released chlorine in the event of a break in the piping. Three 150 lb bottles are stored in. the chlorine storage room in the service building. In case of a chlorine release in either of the chlorine storage rooms, the gas, which is heavier than air, would be taken out of the buildings by floor level vents and exhausted from the top of the respective building to the atmosphere. A fourth 150 lb bottle is located on the exterior of the warehouse building. If failure of this exterior bottle occurs, chlorine would be released directly to the atmosphere.
| |
| A chlorine release inside the circulating water pumphouse could result in the emission of a maximum of 2000 lbs of chlorine to the environment. Calculations performed for the most restrictive dispersive conditions which could result in maximum offsite chlorine gas concentrations (no cooling tower interference with the chlorine cloud and extremely stable (light wind) atmospheric conditions), show that the magnitude of chlorine concentrations in amounts considered to be "dangerous in 30 minutes to one hour", (1) could be experienced
| |
| .by persons at the site boundary. However, in order for this level of chlorine concentrations to be available, this extreme case requires a chlorine cloud translation speed of approxi-mately 1.7 mph. Due to this low cloud translation speed and 7~2 2
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER resultant small cloud size, there would be a personnel alert time of over 40 minutes for persons at the site boundary and an associated total chlorine exposure time of only 17 minutes.
| |
| The same calculations show that chlorine concentrations at the nearest population zone (3.6 miles) would be less than the "least amount required to cause irritation of throat"(1) and gives an alert time of over 2 hours. Since a decreased alert time is only possible due to an increased wind speed, and the approximate proportional decrease in chlorine con-centrations (due to the greater atmospheric turbulent dilu-tion), the possible worst case environmental impacts would be the loss of some vegetation (due to chlorine poisoning) and the resultant slight loss of land cover. When realistic-ally considering the possible interaction of the chlorine cloud and the cooling towers coupled with the long alert time, the possible adverse chlorine affects are reduced substan-tially.
| |
| 7.2.3 Fire Prevention and Effects The occurrence of a major fire at any of the plant site buildings is improbable. If one does occur the effect of the fire on the environment would be limited to the smoke produced.
| |
| Because of the low density of people (see Section 2.1.3),
| |
| crops, and wildlife in the'icinity of the plant the smoke would produce no measurable effects on the environment. A fire located in the area of the main plant buildings would be a minimum of 100 feet from the site fence. Since no readily combustible material will exist between the fenceline and the fire location, the fire could not spread to the surrounding vegetation beyond the site fence unless windblown.
| |
| The effect of fires on the Hanford Reservation has been studied in the past.( ) The primary fuel for fires in the vicinity of WNP-2 is the litter accumulated from the crop of annuals. The areas affected by fire are naturally reseeded relatively quickly with various annuals. The return of other plants such as sagebrush is normally slower.
| |
| Fire prevention measures which will be taken include instruc-tion of plant personnel on the possible sources of fire, on the various aspects of fire prevention and on the proper actions to be taken plant is designed to if a fire does occur.
| |
| reduce both the In addition, the probability of starting a fire and the extent and effects of a fire should one occur.
| |
| 7.2.4 Fuel Oil Accidents Fuel oil (No. 2 and diesel) is required in the plant for the auxiliary boiler and the diesel engines. The diesel engines consist of two plant emergency diesel generators (4650 kW each) one HPCS diesel generator (2600 kW), two diesel driven air com-7~2 3
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER pressors (l5 hp each), and one diesel driven fire pump (250 hp) .
| |
| Fuel oil for the auxiliary boiler is stored in one 50,000 gallon underground storage tank just to the east of the diesel generator building. Oil supply to the boiler is directly from this tank.
| |
| Diesel oil is stored in three underground storage tanks partly underneath the diesel generator building (two of 60,000 gal-lon capacity and one of 50,000 gallon capacity), and three day tanks (3,000 gallons each), one located in each of the three rooms of the diesel generator building. Diesel oil for the fire pump engine is stored in a 280 gallon above ground, out-door storage tank to the rear of the circulating water pump-house. The four underground and day tanks are Seismic Cate-gory I, Quality Class I tanks.
| |
| Oil is delivered to the site by truck and is transferred to the four primary storage tanks. Oil delivery personnel present during the tank filling operation can stop the filling operation prior to overflowing the storage tanks. The three diesel generator day tanks are each filled from their respec-tive storage tanks. This operation is accomplished by controls which automatically start and stop the supply pumps mounted on the storage tanks. The day tanks are each located in an individual room which is "diked" off to retain any tank leak-age. The diked volume exceeds the capacity of the day tank.
| |
| The detection of oil leaks is carried out by routine inspec-tion of oil storage and transfer facilities by the monitoring of oil flow lines and by. accurate inventory of all oil on hand.
| |
| Should a loss of oil be detected action will be taken im-mediately to isolate and repair the faulty equipment and to take the appropriate steps to remove excess oil and effect cleanup.
| |
| To reduce the probability of a fire due to the ignition of fumes, all rooms where the fuel oil is kept have intake and exhaust vents equipped with fire arresters. Xn addition, the large storage tanks are buried.
| |
| 7.2.5 Nearb Industrial, Trans ortation, and Militar Facilities The possible accidents effects caused by nearby industrial, transportation and military facilities effects are discussed in the Final Safety Analysis Report, Section 2.2.
| |
| 7.2-4
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER CHAPTER 8 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 8.1 BENEFITS 8.1.1 Primar Benefits The primary benefits of WNP-2 are those inherent in the value of the generated electricity which will be delivered by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) to 27 municipalities, 22 public utility districts, and 45 electric cooperatives, collectively called the Participants, located principally in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and California and each of whom is a statutory preference customer of BPA. The Participants'hares of the WNP-2 output range from approxi-mately 15 percent to 0.005 percent. An aggregate of approx-imately 22.5 percent of the output is shared by 64 of the Participants each of whom has a share of less'han 1 percent.
| |
| 8.1.1.1 Electric Ener As explained in Section 1.0.2, projections for electrical energy demands and resources in the Northwest are based on the West Group Forecast. This forecast assumes the project supplies 688 MW (average) of energy (6.0 billion kW-hr) in its first full year of commercial operation (1981-82).*
| |
| The following year, and each year thereafter, it is scheduled to supply 825 MW (average) of energy (7.2 billion kW-hrs.),
| |
| according to the projections in the West Group Forecast. As part of Phase I of the Hydro Thermal Power Program, the plant is expected to supply base load energy, to the Pacific Northwest while peaking requirements will be met increasingly by hydr'o facilities.
| |
| The demand for electric energy from the Project is expected to be similar to that experienced in the West. Group Area in 1970. The estimated contribution of each class of consumer to the West Group Area coincidental electric power peak and the share of electric energy consumed by yach, based on available data for 1970, is as follows:
| |
| 1970 Peak EnercnE Residential 50.0% 31.4%
| |
| Commercial 21.3% 13.4%
| |
| Industrial 28. O~o 50.2%
| |
| Other 0.7% 5.0%
| |
| TOTAL 100.0% 100.0%
| |
| *The West Group Forecast uses a water year calendar which runs from July 1 to the following June 30-Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER For 1990 the contribution of each class of consumer to the West Group Area coincidental peak and the percentage of energy consumed are estimated as follows:(1) 1990 Peak EnercnEr Residential 50. 0% 30.9%
| |
| Commercial 24.0% 15.3%
| |
| Industrial 25.0% 48.1%
| |
| Other 1.0% 5.7%
| |
| TOTAL 100.0% 100.0%
| |
| Actual and estimated electric power requirements in the West Group Area are shown on Table 8.1-1. A lower annual average growth rate is expected for the period'rom 1976 to 1990 than was experienced in the period from 1950 to 1976. This change is the result of consumer and producer efforts to conserve energy, higher nonpromotional electric rates, more efficient electrical appliances, electrical appliance saturation, and a leveling off of population.
| |
| 8.1.1.2 Benefits of Avertin Electrical Shorta es The probability of electrical shortage with and without the Project on schedule is discussed in Section 1.1.3.2 in regards to effects on capacity reserves and the magnitude of a deficit to meet firm energy requirements. In the West Group Forecast of Power Loads and Resources, July 1978-June 1987, dated March 1, 1978, the expected date of commercial operation for WNP-2 is May 1981. Based on that date, the forecast states the cumnlative probability of meeting total energy load through June 1982 with the Project on schedule is 26.6 percent and of meeting firm energy load is 69.7 percent. With all projects, including WNP-2, on schedule, the probability of meeting total energy loads in any year through 1989 ranges from 87 to 60 percent. Similarly, the probability of meeting firm energy loads ranges from 98 to 82 percent. Without WNP-2 the probability of meeting total energy loads decreases about 10 to 12 percent and the probability of meeting firm energy loads decreases about 4 to 17 percent.
| |
| Long term shortages of electricity would result in severe social and economic impacts since two-thirds of all electric energy is used in commerce and industry in the Pacific Northwest. An inadequate energy supply for industry means reduced capital investment, fewer jobs, decreased payrolls, less production, and lower living standards. Unemployment would increase demands on governments for welfare and unemployment assistance at the same time that the tax bases financing governments would be declining, and tend to increase social and sociopolitical stresses.
| |
| 8.1-2 Amendment 1.
| |
| May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The Northwest Power Pool has drafted an emergency plan for curtailing loads in the event of long term power shortages.
| |
| This plan is discussed in Section 1.3.1. The voluntary level one curtailment portion of the plan was utilized in the winters of 1972 1973 and 1973 1974 when low flow and adverse hydro conditions were experienced; firm power requirements were met but some interruptible power utilized by industrial customers was curtailed. The costs of these cutbacks are not known but are clearly substantial.
| |
| As the probability for meeting total and firm energy loads in all periods of 1978 to 1989 decreases, the need for projects, such as WNP-2, being available as scheduled becomes greater with the hope that, of if a deficit occurs, emergency plan will need only the voluntary portions the to be utilized.
| |
| 8.1.1.3 Beneficial Uses of B -Product Heat The Supply System as a condition of the Site Certification Agreement with the State of Washington, is cooperating in a project to demonstrate the beneficial use of condenser cooling water. WNP.-2 will be the warm water source for studies on the response of crops and trees to warm water irrigation. Other possible areas of study include aqua-culture, soil heating, and greenhouse and animal enclosure environment control. During operation, 4,000 GPM of water, taken from the hot leg between the plant and the cooling towers will be available to the warm water agricultural project. Cold water will be utilized when warm water is not available.
| |
| The project is coordinated by the Board of Directors of the Hanford Warm Water Utilization Laboratory (HWWUL) composed of representatives of Washington State University, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, the state governments of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Supply System. DOE has leased approx-imately 900 acres to HWWUL for the research project. A pilot study of tree growth on the leased area funded by the Pacific Northwest Regional Commission was initiated in 1976.
| |
| Funding for expanded studies involving the use of the WNP-2 warm water has not yet been secured.
| |
| 8.1.2 Other Social and Economic Benefits 8.1.2.1 Pa rolls and Em lo ment Construction began in September 1972 and is expected to extend through March 1980, with a total construction payroll outlay of about $ 300 million, an average of approximately
| |
| $ 3.3 million per month over the entire period. In 1978, the anticipated year of peak employment of approximately 18SO
| |
| : 8. 1-3 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER construction workers, peak payroll outlays will be about
| |
| $ 8.0 million per month. These payrolls represent an addition to the regional income as the labor force is primarily drawn from the Pacific Northwest, much of Tri-City area.
| |
| it resides in the greater During the 40 year operation period beginning in 1980, 104 permanent operation staff will be employed plus an addi-tional WPPSS support staff of approximately 25 workers. The annual payroll outlay for these employees is estimated to be approximately $ 2. 4 'million.
| |
| : 8. l. 2. 2 Tax Revenues During the construction of the Project, approximately $ 32 million in sales taxes will be paid to state and local government. During operation the Project will pay sales taxes in excess of $ 72 million. Since the Project is entirely owned by WPPSS, a joint operating agency and public utility, no real estate taxes will be levied.
| |
| During the operation period, the Supply System is required by law to pay a "privilege tax" as imposed by RCW 54.28, which is one and one half percent of the wholesale power cost. Over the life of the plant, it is estimated that approximately $ 72 million will be paid in privilege taxes, with approximately $ 36 million of this figure to go to Benton county and a number of other taxing districts within a 35-mile radius of the plant.
| |
| Zn addition to this privilege tax, the Supply System is making payments during the construction period to local school districts experiencing increased enrollment as a result of the Project. En addition to the maintenance and operation payments prescribed by RCW 54.36, (which are ap-proximately $ 400 per project pupil year), the Supply System has voluntarily entered into an agreement with the school districts in the Tri-Cities area to provide funds for capital construction purposes. Upon meeting minimal eligibility requirements, the districts are immediately eligible to draw upon their allotted share of these funds.
| |
| 8.1.2.3 Public Facilities During plant construction, visitors have access to a tem-porary outdoor display located outside the security fence near the southwest gate. With regard to a permanent visitor facility, the Supply System is planning to construct an infor-mation center at its central office facility approximately nine miles South of the WNP-2 and WNP-la4 sites. Present plans are for a 5,000 sq. ft. building which will include archaeol-ogical and energy related displays and demonstrations.
| |
| Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| i~
| |
| ER TABLE 8.1-1 ELECTRIC POlJER RE(UIREMENTS BY MAJOR CONSUMER CATEGORIES IN THE PACIfIC NORTHllEST
| |
| 'liest Group Area Actual Estimated 1950 1960 1970 1976 1980 1990 1995 Population (000) gl 4,675 5,490 6,435 7,016 7,414 8,498 8,977 No. Domestic Consumers (000) 1,073 1,407 1,986 2,394 2,620 3,260 3,575 No. Commercial Consumers (000) 140 177 242 276 302 362 . 392 KNh Per Consumer Domestic 5,112 9,841 13,831 15,742 17,000 20,500 22,000 Commercial 16,799 29,143 50,035 63,088 71,500 95,000 107,800 Ener Sales billions kl<h Domestic 5.5 13.8 27.5 37.7 44.5 66.8 78.6 Commercial 2.4 5.2 12.1 17.4 21.6 34.4 42.1 Industrial ll. 1 22.3 44.1 51.0 .65. 3 93.4 113.8 Irrigation .1 1.0 2.6 3.9 4.6 6.3 7.6 Other .6 .8 1.4 2.1 2.5 4.3 5.1 Total )9. 7 43. 1 87.7 112.1 138.5 205.2 247.2 Losses 3.1 4.7 9.6 11.0 13.2 19.5 22.9 Total Requirements 22.8 47.8 97.3 123.1 151.7 224.7 270.1 Ten Year Annual Growth Rates 7.7X 7.4X 4.5X 4.0X gl States of Hashington, Oregon, Idaho, and western Montana.
| |
| Source: BPA Requirements Section, March 6, 1978
| |
| | |
| TABLE 8.2-1 COST COMPONENTS OF WNP-2 Direct Costs a~ Land and land rights 68,000
| |
| : b. Structures and site facilities 138J840~000 C~ Reactor (boiler) plant equipment 111,529,000 d Turbine plant equipment 102,926,000
| |
| : e. Heat rejection system (cooling towers) 11,590,000 fo Electric plant equipment 58,473,000 gi Miscellaneous plant equipment 42,257,000
| |
| : h. Spare parts allowance 4,876,000 l 0 Contingency allowance 111 065 000 Subtotal $ 581,624,000 Indirect Costs a ~ Construction facilities, equipment.
| |
| and services 28~857I000
| |
| : b. Engineering and construction manage-ment services 116,439,000 c Other costs 222g315/000
| |
| : d. Znterest during construction* 35,103,000 Escalation during construction 92,662,000 Total capitalized Plant Cost, at start of commercial operation r
| |
| $ 1, 077,000, 000 (
| |
| "Does not include debt service on bonds issued for plant construction between the date (September 1977) when payments are to commence under net billing agreements with Bonneville Power Administration and the scheduled commercial operation date (December 1980) . This amount is currently estimated to be $ 199,908,000.
| |
| Amendment 2 Oct 1978
| |
| | |
| TABLE 8. 2-2 INFORMATION REQUESTED BY NRC WNP-2 Znterest during construction 6.68%/year
| |
| : 2. Length of construction work week 40 hours
| |
| : 3. Estimated site labor requirement 9.82 manhours/KWe Total manhours of construction effort 10.8 million 4 Average site labor pay rate (including fringe benefits) effective at month and year of NSSS order $ 12.00/hour(
| |
| : 5. Composite escalation rates for 1978 7.7%/year Composite escalation rates for 1979 7.6%/year Composite escalation rates for 1980 7.2%/year
| |
| : 6. Total plant cost at start of commercial operation $1~ 077 '00 '00 (a) Weighted 'average effective interest rate.
| |
| NSSS was ordered in April 1971 before site construction began. The $ 12.00/hour represents average site labor pay rate for March 1976, the delivery date for NSSS. Zn January 1978 the average labor cost was $ 14.23/hour.
| |
| Amendment 1 i%ay 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER The occurrence of the rapid increase in population projected by Woodwazd-Clyde Consultants is substantiated by the numbers of new residential telephone hookups experienced by General Telephone in 1974 through 1977, and the expansion of the residential housing market in the Tri-City area. The zesidential population increase is scattered among the Tri-Cities and outlying communities.
| |
| The association of WNP-2 to the total residential population increase can be estimated from the results of a survey of WNP-2 workers in February 1975 performed as part of the socioeconomic study by Woodward-Clyde Consultants. It was found that 65 percent of the workers surveyed (about 70 percent of 550 workers) lived in the Tri-City area before construction on WNP-2 began and that about 80 percent of the workers surveyed lived in the Tri-Cities.<3~ At the time of the survey in February 1975, approximately 1200 construction workers were employed on the FFTF Project. In making pro-jections of total population growth in the Tri-City area, Woodward-Clyde Consultants assumed that 40 percent of the peak construction work force on WNP-2 in 1977 or 660 workers, would be new residents.
| |
| Xt is significant that the demand for workers on WNP-1 and WNP-4 will be increasing to about 3300 workers from 1975 to 1980. It is also significant to note that FFTF and WNP-2 will have been completed by then, or will be near the end of the downside of their manpower curves. Since the mix and magnitude of building trades workers is similar on these projects, it is expected that the new resident workers on FFTF and WNP-2 will remain in the Tri-City area to work on WNP-1 and 4. An attempt to confirm this hypothesis began in February 1978, when a question on "place of previous employ-ment" was included on the revised "1st Day,. Worker Survey" for WNP-1/4 workers. This questionnaire is one of several data sources developed for the socioeconomic monitoring effort required by the State of Washington Site Certifi-cation Agreement for WNP-1/4.
| |
| As construction activities on WNP-1/4 peak and are completed between 1979 and 1983, construction population growth in the Tri-City area is expected to decline; however, the expansion occuring in other local industries and irrigation agri-culture is expected by 1982 to take up the slack in population growth caused by a decline in construction industry employment.
| |
| It is likely that other construction projects related to energy research and development will occur in the Tri-City area during the 1980-1989 decade.
| |
| t The increase in population from 1974 to 1978 is anticipated to have certain adverse effects rel'ated to the increased burden of new residents on community services and facilities.
| |
| 8.2-3 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Although conceived as adverse effects in the short-term, the act of increasing community services and facility capacities during the late 1970's will be a benefit in the 1980's as the area population stabilizes at a higher permanent level.
| |
| The anticipated effects of short-term population growth on community services and facilities are summarized on Table
| |
| : 8. 2-6.
| |
| The housing requirement noted in Table 8.2-6 is being met by the number of new homes and apartments which have been and are being constructed. The local residential housing market sector seems capable of responding to the short-term need which is anticipated.
| |
| The effects of population growth on school enrollments is a problem in the Tri-City area which is being met by intra-district busing and the construction of new facilities.
| |
| The Supply System has negotiated an agreement with school districts effected by WNP-1 and 4 to make financial assis-tance payments for construction of new facilities. Also included in the agreement is a procedure for compensating for enrollment increases caused by WNP-2 and WNP-1/4. The conditions of the agreement are consistent with WPPSS authority as a public agency and are detailed to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of funds when and where need exists.
| |
| Local hospitals are not expected to be impacted by the anticipated short-term population increase. In fact, Table 8.2-6 depicts a condition of excess capacity in all three local hospitals. However, need for increased fire and police protection is anticipated.
| |
| The various public Works Departments in the Tri-Cities are aware of the general pressures of growth, and have adopted a policy of meeting the overall area growth as part of their normal functions. Quantity and pressure within water systems is not a problem, except during those weather abnormalities when there are more than two weeks of temper-atures in excess of 100 F. Almost all of the communities are planning or building significant increases in water supply and/or pressure systems to come on line during the 1979-1982 period. Increases in the size and capabilities of sewage treatment and collector systems are also being planned or constructed, although none of the public works departments would even characterize the peaks under current conditions as "critical".
| |
| Traffic congestion associated with workers traveling to the Hanford Reservation through the City of Richland is a problem on George Washington Way and the By-Pass Highway during peak periods during the morning and afternoon. However, progress 8.2-4 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER is being made towards placement of two additional lanes on the By-Pass. Planning and design for the project will be carried out in 1978 and early 1979, and the project has top priority for construction during Washington's 1979-81 budgetary biennium. Barring any major budget surprises from the 1979 Legislative'Session, the project will be constructed during June through September, 1979. These improvements, coupled with a decrease in construction personnel from PFTP and WNP-2, will greatly ease congestion on this highway.
| |
| Since the WNP-2 site is located on the DOE Hanford Reser-vation, twelve miles north of the City of Richland and two miles west of the Columbia River, noise and temporary aesthetic disturbances on residential populations are expected to be negligible. In addition, the acquisition of land for WNP-2 did not cause any affect on local residents because the land is leased from DOE and has not had residents since 1943 when it was acquired by the Manhattan Project of the Army Corps of Engineers.
| |
| 8.2.2.2 Lon -Term External Costs Long-term external costs are those associated with the operation of WNP-2 beginning in 1980 for approximately 40 years.
| |
| The operation of the Project will not impair recreational values, deteriorate aesthetic values, or degrade or restrict access to areas of scenic, historical, or cultural interest.
| |
| The Project is located 12 miles north of the City of Rich-land on the DOE Hanford Reservation and, as such, is not anticipated to create locally adverse meteorological con-ditions or noise.
| |
| The increased costs to local governments for services required by the permanently employed plant workers and their families are expected to be compensated for by local taxes paid by individual workers who become permanent residents.
| |
| In addition, the project will provide abundant tax revenues to the area taxing districts from the privilege (generation) tax ($ 36 million) and from the sales tax on fuel reloads (approximately $ 7.2 million) during plant operation. (WNP 1 and 4, also in the Tri-Cities area, will also be providing
| |
| $ 126 million from the generation tax and $ 33.4 million in sales taxes to local governments during approximately the same time period as WNP-2.)
| |
| : 8. 2-5 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER There is no known economic incentive for heavy industry to be attracted to the WNP-2 site area. There are no electric rate incentives or deterents to influence the growth of residential or commercial customers in the WNP-2 site area.
| |
| Therefore, no long-term external costs are anticipated with respect to further industrial development in the area.
| |
| 8.2-6 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| TABLE 8.2-1 COST COMPONENTS OF WNP-2 Direct Costs a 4 Land and land rights 68,000
| |
| : b. Structures and site facilities 138,840,000 c ~ Reactor (boiler) plant equipment 111,529,000
| |
| : d. Turbine plant equipment 102,926,000
| |
| : e. Heat rejection system (cooling towers) 11,590,000
| |
| : f. Electric plant equipment 58,473,000 g Miscellaneous plant equipment 42,257,000
| |
| : h. Spare parts allowance 4,876,000
| |
| : 3. ~ Contingency allowance 111,065,000 Subtotal $ 581,624,000 Indirect Costs
| |
| 'a ~ Construction facilities, equipment and services 28,857,000
| |
| : b. Engineering and construction manage-ment services 116,439,000 c ~ Other'costs 222,315,000 d 0 Interest during construction* 35,103,000 Escalation during construction 92,662,000 Total capitalized Plant Cost, at, start of commercial operation (September 1980) 01 i 077, 000 I 000
| |
| *Does not include debt service on bonds issued for plant construction between the date (September 1977) when payments are to commence under net billing agreements with Bonneville Power Administration and the scheduled commercial operation, date (September 1980) . This amount is currently estimated to be $ 199,908,000.
| |
| Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| TABLE 8.2-2 INFORMATION REQUESTED BY NRC WNP-2 1- Interest during construction 6.68%/year
| |
| : 2. Length of construction work week 40 hours
| |
| : 3. Estimated site labor requirement 9.82 manhours/KWe Total manhours of construction effort -
| |
| 10.8 million 4 ~ Average site labor pay rate (including fringe benefits) effective at month and year of NSSS order $ 12.00/hour
| |
| : 5. Composite escalation rates for 1978 7.7%/year Composite escalation rates for 1979 7.6%/year Composite escalation rates for 1980 7.2%/year
| |
| : 6. Total plant cost at start, of commercial operation $ lg077g000g000 (a) Weighted average effective interest rate.
| |
| NSSS was ordered in April 1971 before site construction began. The $ 12.00/hour represents average site labor pay rate for March 1976, the delivery date for NSSS. In January 1978 the average labor cost was $ 14.23/hour.
| |
| Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| TABLE 8.2-3 ESTIMATED COST OF ELECTRICITY FROM WNP-2 mills/kilowatt Fixed Costs Annual Cost hour Interest and Amortization 80,526,000 13.20 Insurance 2,259,000 .37 Payment to Reserve and Contingency Fund 8,053,000 1.32 Operation and Maintenance (fixed) 12,183,000 2.00 Administration and General 6,,977,000 1.14 Subtotal 109,998,000 18.03 Less: Surplus of Prior Year' Payment to Reserve and Contingency Fund 5,305,000 -.87 Interest Earnings 2,712,000 -.44 Total Fixed Cost $ 1011 981 000 4 16. 72 Variable Costs Nuclear Fuel Cycle (b)
| |
| Cost. of U 08 (yellow cake) .97 Cost of skipping .23 Cost of conversion and enrichment 2.69 Cost of conversion and fabrication ~ 70 Cost of reprocessing .00 Carrying charge on fuel'inventory .10 Cost of waste disposal .73 Credit for plutonium, U-233 or U-235 F 00 Total cost for fuel 33,055,000 5.42 Taxes 1,971,000 ~ 32 1
| |
| Total Variable Cost 35,026,000 5.74 Net Annual Cost 8137,007,000 22.46 All variable costs are calculated at 63 percent plant factor.
| |
| Mills/kWh derived from data developed for the 1978 Fuel Mana ement Plan by B. M. Moore, WPPSS. The cost is levelized over a 15 year period and is escalated.
| |
| Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| NiitP- 2 HR TABLE 8.2-4 POPULATION DATA FOR TIIE TRI-CITY AREA 1940 1950 1 960 1970 197 1
| |
| * 1972" 1973'974 1976 1976 1977 Benton County 12,053 51,370 62,070 67,540 67,700 67,800 68,200 69,800 73,300 78,700 84,500 Fra nkl in County 6 307 13 563 23 342 25 816 26.000 L6,000 '26,000 26.200 26.700 27,500 20,300 TOTALS 18,360 64,933 85,412 93,356 93,700 93,800 94,200 96,000 100,000 106,200 112,800 Kenneviick 1,918 10,106 14,244 15,212 15,400 15,580 16,200 16,800 18,253**21,301~~ 23,638"*
| |
| Pasco 3,913 10,228 14,522 13,9?0 13,920 14,000 14,050 14,100 14,450 14,618 15,500 Richland 247 21,809 23,548 26,290 26,300 26,350 26,600 28,000 28,600 30,009** 31,040 Mes t Richland 1.347 1 107 1 143 1.159 1.225 1.247*' 477+
| |
| * 1,561*'2,024**
| |
| TRI-C ITY TOTALS 6,078 42,143 53,661 56,529 56,763 57,089 58,075 60,147 62,780 67,489 72,202
| |
| 'Estimates from Tri-City Chamber of Commerce and the l<ashington State Office of Program and Fiscal blanagement.
| |
| "'"Actual Census.
| |
| Source:
| |
| 4" 6 Socioeconomic Stud: l<PPSS Nuclear Pro. ects Nos. 1 and 4by lloodward-Clyde Consultants, April 1975, Tables 4.3-1 and 4.3-2.
| |
| 1974-1976 "llashington Information Report; State of Ilashington, Population Trends, 1976", Population Studies Division, Office of Program I'lanning and Fiscal Hanagement, Olympia, August 1976.
| |
| 1977. Prelimi>>ary Estimates, yet to be certified, unpublished data, Benton-Franklin Council of Governments.
| |
| | |
| WNP 2 ER TABLE 8".2-5 PROJECTED SHORT-TERM POPULATION GROWTH IN TRI-CITY AREA Yearly Chancae Actual 1974 108,026 1975 + 4,332 112,358 1976 + 6,667 119,025 Projected 1977 + 7,500 126,525 1978 + 6500 130,500 1979 1000 129,500 1980 1500 128,000 1981 + 500 128,500 1982 + 1500 130,000 a
| |
| After 1978 changes will depend upon new major construction.
| |
| Sources: Socioeconomic Stud : WPPSS Nuclear Pro'ects Nos. 1 and 4, April 1975 "Washington State Information Report State of Washington Population Trends, 1976," Population Studies Division of the Office of Program Plan-ning and Fiscal Management, Olympia, Washington, August 1976.
| |
| Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| ;UivP-2 ER TABLE 8.2-6 SUM/1ARY OF REGIONAL GRO'HTN INDICATORS Richland Kennwrick Pasco 19~419 5 I976 191~1978 1 6 19 7 1%8 Popul a t i on 28,000 28,600 30,009 31,040 32,050 16,800 18,253 21,301 23,638 24,000 14.100 14,450 14,618 15.500 16,400 Population increases* 600 1,409 1,031 725 1,453 3.048 2,337 362 - 350 168 882 900 Mousing Required 200 470 345 242 4&5 1,020 780 120 - 120 36 295 300 School 7,648 7,843 7,979 8,080 8,016 7,632 7,839 8,517 8,842 9,000 4,825 4,782 5,033 5.473 5,955 Enrollment~'ncreases 195 136 101 80 - 207 678 325 158 - (43) 251 440 482 Mater Requirements (liGD)
| |
| Plant Capacity 36 36 36 36 36 13.5 14.0 14.0 14.0 19.5 20 20 20 20 20 Average Use 13.7 13.7 13.8 13.8 13.9 4.5 4.8 5.2 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.7 Peak Use 35.0 35.1 35.2 35.2 35.3 9.1 11-0 13.1 13.5 15.5 14.5 14.8 14.9 15.0 Sewage Disposal Use (HGD)
| |
| Plant Capacity 6 6 6 6 6 8.0 8.0 .8.7 8.7 8.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 Average Use 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.8 3.8 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.9 Peak Use 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.3 3.2 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.9 Policemen 35 35 35 40 40 20 27 30 30 32 24 27 27 28 29 Firemen 37 '7 38 38 39 26 29 30 30 32 22 24 24 24 25 ilospital Beds 80 80 Available 135 135 135 135 135 60 60 60 60 60 80 80 80 Average Use 91 93 90 90 90 . 40 36 34 32 32 55 54 53 52 51 UOTES: 1974 through 1976 data source - The agencies providing the service or facility.
| |
| 5 9 1977 through 1978 estimates based on projections and/or per capita deamnd.
| |
| <8
| |
| *Excluding 1977-78 annexations, mg **For 1977, May 1, 1977 only MS co Q
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER CHAPTER 9 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND SITES 9.1 ALTERNATIVES NOT REQUIRING THE CREATION OF NEW GENERATING CAPACITY At the time of application for a Construction Permit for WNP-2, it was concluded that the projected power requirements of the region could best be met by addition of a new base load thermal plant. This conclusion is still valid; and according to the latest West Group Forecast, the power output of the unit will be fully utilized when it commences operation.
| |
| updated evaluation of the need for power was presented in An Chapter l.
| |
| : 9. 1-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 9.2 ALTERNATIVES REQUIRING THE CREATION OF NEW GENERATING CAPABILITY Several alternate energy sources'ere given consideration during the early planning stages of WNP-2. There have been no changes in the technology or economics of any of these alternatives that would indicate that the project should be abandoned in favor of an alternative generation method.
| |
| : 9. 2-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER, 9.3 'ELECTION OF CANDIDATE AREAS The selection of the site for WNP-2 has been fully discussed in previous documents of public record. No new information has come to light as a result of construction activities or environme'ntal monitoring programs that would indicate in. any way that the sele'cted site is unsuitable for the project.
| |
| 9.3-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 9.4 COST-BENEFIT COMPARISON OF'ANDIDATE SITE PLANT ALTERNATIVES There is no alternative plant-site combination that would afford a better balance of economic, social, and environ-mental factors than the proposed project. This situation has not. changed since the original analysis was made.
| |
| : 9. 4-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER CHAPTER 10 PLANT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 10.1 COOLING SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 10.1.1 Ran e of Alternative Coolin S stems The cooling system for dissipating the waste heat from WNP-2 is described in Section 3.4, "Heat Dissipation System." At the time of application for a Construction Permit for WNP-2, the Supply System investigated the following alternative heat dissipation methods: variations of mechanical draft cooling towers, natural draft wet cooling towers, spray ponds, once-through cooling,'nd a cooling pond (1,2).
| |
| The selection of the WNP-g heat dissipation system was based on: determining what systems were available', selection an'd analysis of realistic alternatives, and optimization of the selected type of system.
| |
| Analyses considering environmental and economic factors we'e performed for the various alternatives. Rectangular mechan-ical draft (induced) wet cooling towers were selected to pro-vide the-best combination of characteristics for WNP-2 as shown in the WNP-2 Construction Permit Stage Environmental'eport.
| |
| Since that document, further advances in mechanical tower technology has resulted in round concrete draft'ooling mechanical draft cooling towers as an alternative to the rec-tangular design. No technological advances in any of the other alternatives looked into in the Construction Permit Stage Environmental Report. has resulted (to date) in an improvement over mechanical draft cooling towers.
| |
| A cost-benefit comparison performed in 1972 resulted in the decision to construct round mechanical draft cooling Figure 3.1-3). An environmental and economical costs-towers'see benefits comparison between round and rectangular cooling towers, if done today, would not be expected to result in a different conclusion, especially when considering the asso-ciated sunk environmental and economical costs. However, is relevant to show how the selection of the round cooling it towers over the rectangular cooling towers was made. There-fore, the following is a summary of the evaluation of these two types of mechanical towers"perform'ed by the Supply System in December 1972 to determine which tower exhibited better economical and environmental characteristics.
| |
| : 10. 1-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 10.1.1.1 General Both of the alternate cooling systems are based upon the eva-porative cooling process; Thus it is appropriate to discuss the evaporation of water to a moving air stream, the rate con-trolling properties, the limits of the process and other phenomena inherent in the process.
| |
| The heat transfer process involves a 'latent heat transfer due to change in state of a small portion of the water from liquid to vapor and a sensible heat transfer due to the difference in temperature of the water and air. Approximately 1000 Btu are required to evaporate one pound of water. The properties which control the rate, of evaporation are the degree of satur-ation of the air and the difference between the,"wet-bulb" temperature and the cold water temperature. This temperature difference is called the "approach to the wet-bulb" or simply the "approach". The degree of cooling; ie, the temperature difference of the water entering and leaving the cooling sys-tem is called the "range".
| |
| When water is evaporated, the chemicals, minerals''and dirt which were in the water either, as dissolved solids or.sus; pended.solids remain behind. Thus, if the water evaporated
| |
| ,is simply replaced .by an equal amount (makeup) the concentra-tion of dissolved solids in the system would continue to-increase. This can cause corrosion or scaling of the system components. The increase of dissolved solids in the system is'ontrolled by adding more makeup water than is evaporated, and intentionally returning, the excess (blowdown) from the system back to the river.
| |
| The pH is controlled by chemically treating the water, in this. case by adding sulfuric acid until the pH is between 6.5 and 8.5.
| |
| The location and orientation of cooling towers with respect to nearby buildings, electrical structures, and prevailing winds is important from the standpoint of noise, fog, and icing conditions created by the saturated air discharge, and interference with the free movement of air into the tower intakes.- These factors are balanced with piping and power transmission costs and site related installation factors.
| |
| The air flow designs used in both mechanical draft tower alternatives is induced draft, where fans are located in the air outlet. Heated water entering the tower is broken into drops increasing water surface area and facilitating evapor-ation. Release of the latent heat of vaporization to the air, which is expelled from the tower by the fans, cools the water droplets which are collected and recirculated back through the plant condenser.
| |
| 10.1-2
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 10.1.1.2 Selected Coolin S stem 0 timization A system of conventional mechanical draft (induced) cooling towers (MDCT) is considered the optimal design to minimize environmental and economic costs. Upon selection of the con-ventional MDCT, the Supply System conducted a series of indepth studies" of MDCT designs. As a result, six, round concrete MDCT's were selected as the cooling system for WNP-2.
| |
| The round mechanical draft cooling towers were determined to have a number of advantages over the conventional (rectangular) mechanical draft cooling towers. The following information comes from the study made by the Supply System in 1972.
| |
| A 10.1.2.1 Com arison of Desi ns Rectangular Item Towers Round Towers No. of towers Total Land required 19.5 acres 9.2 acres Design wet-bulb 60 F 60 F Cold side temp 76.5 F 76.3 F Approach to wet-bulb 16.5 F 16.3 F Range 28 F 28 F Turbine back press. Base Same Fan horsepower 200 hp 200 hp No. of cells 36 No. of fans 36 36 10.1.3 Power Consum tion Table 10.1-1 compares the relative energy requirements of the two tower systems in terms of 1972 capitalized energy consump-tion (turbine back pressure was taken as equal for both sys-tems).
| |
| 10.1.4 Effect on Ca acit, Factor Neither alternative would have an effect on the capacity factor.
| |
| 10.1-3
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Monetized Costs As shown in Table 10.1-2, evaluated 1972 differential con-struction cost is $ 616,200 in favor of the round towers.
| |
| It is not expected that the relative ranking of the two sys-tems would be different if the same evaluation were performed today.
| |
| 10.1.6 Environmental Costs The round towers are constructed of concrete, while the con-struction of the rectangular towers would have required wood.
| |
| Since wood has not been used-in the construction of the round cooling towers or as a fill material, chemical preser-vatives will not be used in the round towers, as would have been the case for rectangular towers. This eliminates the possible discharge of preservatives to the river.
| |
| Both systems have similar blowdown, evaporation, makeup re-quirements; therefore, their relative effects on the Col-umbia River and its aquatic life would be similar. The greatest difference would result from the difference in the towers'lume rise.
| |
| The plume rise from round towers would be greater than from rectangular towers. This is due to the concentrated heat content of the combined six stack exhausts of the round towers, as compared to the less concentrated heat content in the plumes of the multiple cell rectangular towers. The higher plume rise results in reduced local fogging and icing at the plant and on the environment in the Hanford area. This re-duction in fogging and icing potential is responsive to the Thermal Power Plant. Site Evaluation Councils request that. the applicant investigate improvements in this area.
| |
| : 10. 1-4
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 10.1-1 CAPITALIZED TOWER ENERGY CONSUMPTION Four Six Round Ca italized 0 eratin Costs Rectan ular Towers Towers a) Capitalized Plant Output due to a 232,900 362,300 fan Outage b) Capitalized Energy Consumption for 1,991,700 1,842,300 Tower Fans c) Capitalized Differ-ential Plant Output due to 0.2oF Cold 147,000 Base Water Temperature Difference d) Total Capitalized Costs $ 2,371,600 $ 2,204,900 e) Differential Capi-talized Costs $ 167,000 Base NOTE: Based on December, 1972 costs (when analysis was performed).
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 10 ~ 1-2 COST COMPARISON OF MECHANI'CAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS Four Six Round Ca italized Construction Costs Rectan ular Towers Towers a) Tower Direct Installa- 7,226,000 7,226,000 tion Cost, b) Expanded Engineering 25,000 Cost on Base Design by Tower Contractor, c) Piping and Electrical 3,950,800 3,291,600 Installation Costs, d) Additional A-E Cost, 18,000 e) Total Tower Cost, 11,176,800 $ 10,560,600 f) Differential Tower Cost 616,200 (Base)
| |
| Note: Based on December 1972 costs (when analysis was performed)
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 10.2 INTAKE SYSTEM The makeup water intake system is made up of three parts:
| |
| the water inlets, two lead-in pipes approximately 900 feet long, and the pump structure almost fully buried in the river bank. The intake system is designed for a maximum capacity of 25,000 gpm. Although the quantity of makeup water depends on evaporation, drift and blowdown requirements, the average annual makeup water demand is expected to be approximately 15,500 gpm. Three 12,500 gpm pumps are provided with one to serve as a spare.
| |
| The infiltration bed intake was the selected intake system at the time of the Construction Permit Stage Environmental Re-port. However, the Supply System has re-evaluated that decision and the following is a summary of that 1973 evalu-ation of the environmental, performance, and cost factors of several alternatives. The perforated pipe type of inlet optimizes the previously mentioned factors and therefore was selected as the system to be used for WNP-2. The following discussion shows the procedure and pertinent factors evalu-ated in selecting this type of intake in 1973. Since no superior designs have become available since 1973, the rela-tive rankings of alternatives would probably still be the of same if this analysis were performed today. Consideration the sunk environmental and monetized costs would result in a decided advantage for retaining the completed system.
| |
| 10.2.1 Ran e of Alternatives Many intake alternatives were considered. The following four schemes were evaluated in detail(li2):
| |
| : a. Perforated pipes mounted above the river bed
| |
| : b. Conventional intake (modified for fish protection)
| |
| : c. Infiltration bed
| |
| : d. Perforated pipes located in an off river channel 10.2.1.1 Perforated Pi es Mounted Above River Bed This intake (See Figure 3.4-7) utilizing a perforated pipe for water screening is described in Section 3.4 and is the selected intake system for'NP-2.
| |
| For fish protection, the design utilizes an external sleeve with 3/8" perforations and an internal sleeve with 3/4" per-forations. This design provides a uniform inlet velocity through the external sleeve.
| |
| 10.2-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 10.2.1.2 Conventional Intake (Modified for fish protection)
| |
| A plan and section of the intake are shown in Figure 10.2-1.
| |
| The essential mechanical features are: trash racks, traveling screens and vertical mixed flow pumps. The structure differs from conventional intakes in that the screens are mounted flush with their supporting walls and fish escape openings are provided in the outer walls. This combination permits a clear fish escape passage directly to right or left from the face of the screen. Traveling screen mesh openings are 1/4 inch clear with possibility that smaller openings may be re-quired seasonally to reduce intake of small fish. The approach water velocity at. the screens would not exceed 0.5 fps at minimum river level.
| |
| In order to avoid a potential fish trapping slackwater inlet in the shore line, the structure would be located on the low water bank of the river. Access to the structure from the high water bank would be provided by a trestle as shown in Figure 10.2-2.
| |
| 10.2.1.3 Infiltration Bed The infiltration bed is shown in Figures 10.2-3 and 10;2-4.
| |
| .It would be located in an off-river channel and into the water would system through a porous medium composed of be drawn sand, gravel, and stone. The water passes through the medium into underlying pipes which lead to the pump structure loca-ted several hundred feet inland. A backwash system would be provided to remove materials which collect on the porous bed during operation.
| |
| At the infiltration,channel entrance a gate structure would be provided to control the water velocity in the channel and across the porous bed.
| |
| 10.2.1.4 Perforated Pi es Located in an Off River Channel The perforated pipe intake would be located in a concrete lined channel off the mainstream of the river as shown in Fi'gure 10.2-5. It would utilize the same inlet concept as the perforated pipes located in the river.
| |
| This scheme would avoid any obstruction to navigation and the necessity for providing the long lead-in pipe to the pump structure.
| |
| With the low channel velocities, sediment will settle at, some point along the channel. A two section stilling basin would be provided to divert this sediment into areas where the material can be removed. The individual stilling basin sections can be isolated by gates from the normal flow to the 10.2-2
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER operations would not be carried into the intake area and beyond into the discharge channel.
| |
| 10.2.2 Normalization of Cost Com arison All of the alternatives considered were evaluated at a pump-ing rate of 25,;000- gpm. Difference in pumping power required were calculated by estimating the head loss between the inlet and pump suctions. The differential power cost for the alter-natives is tabulated in Table 10.2-1, with the perforated pipe intake taken as base.
| |
| 10.2.3 Effect of Ca acit Factor There would be no effect on plant capacity factor from any of the alternatives.
| |
| 10.2.4 Monetized Cost The total differential costs are tabulated in Table 10.2-1 for each alternative. The perforated pipe is the least costly and the infiltration bed is the most costly, based on March, 1973 cost levels. All schemes were evaluated at a pumping rate of 25,000 gpm. If another economic analysis were made today, it is expected that the relative rankings of the sys-tems would be the same.
| |
| 10.2.5 Alternative Environmental Costs The following environmental impact factors were considered for this system.-
| |
| a ~ Impingement and entrainment of microscopic plankton organisms, fish eggs, larvae and juvenile fish with little to or no swimming ability. The volume of water be pumped in all schemes in relation to the river flow is very small (.15% of minimum river flows) .
| |
| : b. Temporary turbidity increase due to construction dredging and backfilling activities.
| |
| : c. Permanent damage to river bottom and shoreline.
| |
| Table 10.2-2 shows a summary comparison of the four intake schemes with the perforated pipes mounted above the river bed as base.
| |
| 10.2.5.1 Perforated Pi e Mounted Above River Bed Very low intake approach velocities and the beneficial effect, of the river current sweeping past the exposed inlet pipe 10.2-3
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER surface will keep impingement of organisms to a minimum.
| |
| The inlet is also located well away from the shore, where out-migrating salmonoid fry concentrations are expected to be less than along the shore.
| |
| During construction of the perforated pipe intake, some river turbidity was developed. This was due primarily to the fact that the perforated pipes are located away from the shore.
| |
| However, temporary turbidity resulting from construction had no noticable effect upon spawning of adult salmon,-which takes place upstream of the facility. Construction of the intake system was undertaken during the low water period July, 31 through October, 1975. Adverse effects on migrating juvenile salmonoids were minimal. Adult chinook salmon spawn up river and migrate past the Project primarily along the opposite bank of the river.
| |
| The permanent facilities use a minimum of river bank and area compared with other schemes. Only the perforated pipe itself is in the waterway.
| |
| 10.2.5.2 Conventional Intake (Modified)
| |
| The potential for damage to aquatic life would be greater in this type of intake than for the perforated pipe. Entraining of larval fish and other microscopic river organisms drifting or swimming weakly in the water would occur through the 1/4 inch openings of the screens. Decreasing the size of the screen openings would decrease entrainment but increase impingement of these forms.
| |
| This structure would extend riverward across the current flow.
| |
| This would create an eddy below the structure where fish could congregate, which would be an undesirable effect. Construc-tion would have temporarily increased river turbidity. The permanent structure at the shoreline would remove a small area of the benthic habitat and shoreline and interfere with the river's flood flow.
| |
| 10.2.5.3 Infiltration Bed This scheme offers the greatest protection from entrainment and impingement of the aquatic life, including fish and non-swimming forms. Intake velocities would be well below the velocities that might affect even the smallest fish.
| |
| The major problem for existing facilities of this type has been the clogging of the bed and the need for frequent inter-mittent backwashing. Backwashing operation would raise river turbidity to some degree, and it is anticipated that during normal operation, turbidity would periodically exceed the acceptable limits.
| |
| 10.2-4
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Turbidity during construction and op'eration would have had no impact on the spawning of the adult fall chinook salmon.
| |
| Construction of the canal and infiltration bed would have caused temporary disturbance to the existing river bed and would have increased river turbidity. A significant portion of the shoreline.'would have been taken up by the infiltration bed.
| |
| Although this system has some merits, the overall environ-mental impact is found to be greater than the selected system.
| |
| 10.2.6 Perforated Pi e in a Diversion Channel This alternative has some advantages over the system used in that it eliminates all obstructions in the river and would cause the least disruption to the river bottom. During con-struction, there would be some river turbidity. The side channel would tend to collect out-migrating salmonoid fry, and it would be expected that a greater number of fish would pass the perforated pipe in this channel than the one placed in the river. Velocity of the water flow passing the inlet would be far below that for the open river thus reducing fish protection. Hence, the effect on fish greater than for the selected system.
| |
| Considering the overall environmental impact, this scheme is less favorable than the selected system.
| |
| 10.2-5
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 10.2-1 INTAKE SCHEMES DIFFERENTIAL COST COMPARISON Perforated Pipe In Off-River Infiltration Conventional Costs Perforated Pi e Channel bed (Modified)
| |
| A. Con-struction Direct Costs (Base) $ 487,000 $ 1gl25g000 $ 245g000 Escalation (2yr.) 53,000 (2 r.) 192,000(24 r.)27,000(2 r.)
| |
| 540/000 lg317g000 272g000 Modelling Laboratory 50,000 30,000 10,000 Field 150,000
| |
| 'ngineering 38,000 92,000 19,000
| |
| "
| |
| 628,000 1 g589 F000 301 F000 Contingencies (15%) 94,000(15%) 377,000 (20%) -40,000 (10%)
| |
| 722,000 1/966g000 261~000 Financing and Interest tl (20%) 138,000 380,000 66,000 Subtotal A (Base) 860,000 2,346,000 327,000 and Maintenance Annual Cost 0aM+ (Base) 3,000 8,700 800 Capitalized 0 s M 37,000 110,000 10,000 Incremental Il
| |
| * Power 3,000 -2,000 Subtotal B Base 37~000 113,000 8,000 C. Total Cost (A+B) (Base) $ 897,000 $ 2,459,000 $ 335,000
| |
| + Based on total Construction Cost
| |
| '* Based on 2ft. incremental head loss over conventional scheme
| |
| "* Based on lft. incremental head loss over conventional scheme Note 1: Costs include all elements of the scheme up to the point of entry into the makeup water pipeline leading to the plant.
| |
| The electrical substation common to all schemes, is not included. The estimate for the conventional scheme includes the trestle and the pipe section parallel with the trestle.
| |
| Note 2: All costs are based on 1973 prices (time of selection.
| |
| the same analysis were performed today, the relative rankings If of the systems would not change.
| |
| | |
| TABLE 10. 2-2 (SHEET l o f 2)
| |
| COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE INTAKE SYSTEMS Conventional Perforated Pipe Perforated Pipe in Infiltration (Nodified)
| |
| Incremental Intake Off River Channel Sed Pumphouse; Capital Cost $ 897 F 000 $ 2,459,000 $335 F 000 ;
| |
| Environmental Costs U it* i~it 'd i ii M~lt d i ti ~Mit d i tio ~Mjt d i ii
| |
| : 1. Natural surface water body
| |
| : 1. 1 Fish Impingement 5.1 10.2 10.2 10.2 Adult salmonids 5 Loss 0 0 0 0 Juvenile salmonids PS LP N 8 Other adult game fish g Loss 0 0 0 0 Other juvenile game fish NL NL N 1.2 Passage through cooling system 5.1 10.2 10. 2 10.2 1.2 1 Phytoplankton y Change 40.1 c 0.1 c 0.1 c 0.1 Zooplankton 5 change <0.1 4: 0.1 4 0.1 c.0.1 1.2.2 Juvenile salmonids PS Other juvenile game fish I I 1 3 Discharge plume N N NL N 1.4 Chemical Effluents NA NA 1.5 Radionuclides discharged to water NA NA 1.6 Consumptive water usc gal/day NA NA NA 1.7 Plant construction effects 5.1 10. 2 10.2 10.2 1.7.1 Physical water quality volume acres-ft N N N N area acres 0.25 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.7.2 Chemical water quality volume acre-ft area acres 1.8 Other impacts none 5.1 none 10.2
| |
| , none 10.2 none 10.2 1.9 Combined or interactive effects 4.1a 5.1 N 10. 2 10.2 N N 10.2 1.10 Net effects PI &5 PI 10.2 4 1 1 10. 2 10. 2
| |
| : 2. Ground Water none none none none
| |
| : 3. Air
| |
| | |
| TM3LE 10.2-2 (SHEET 2 of 2)
| |
| Perforated Pipe Perforated pipe in Infiltration Conventional Intake Off River Channel Bed Pumphouse Environmental Costs Utt ~Mktds ti ~ltd s t se'cd 5 tf M~ltd5 t Land 4 1 Site selected (all additional land required is desert) acres 1.0 5.1 1.0 10.2 1.0 10 2 1 0 10 2 4.2 Construction activities 4.2.1 People affected none 4.1 none none none 4.2.2 Historical places 2.3 affected none 2.3 none 2.3 none 2.3 none 4.2.3 Archeological site disturbed by cooling system none 2.3 none none none
| |
| '.7 4.2.4 Wildlife 4.2.5 Land disturbed acres 2.0 5.1 2.0 10.2 2 0 10.2 2.0 10 2 4 3 Plant operation none 2.2 none none none 4.3.1 People affected Aesthetics none 3.1 none none 4.3.2 4.3.3 Wildlife 2.7 N N N 4.3.4 Plood Control NI NI PS NA NA NA 4.4 Salts from cooling HA NA 4.5 Transmission route 4.6 Transmission facilities NA NA NA construction 4.7 Transmission line NA NA operations HA none 5.1 none 10.2 ' none 10 2 none 10.2 4.8 other land impacts a 10.2 none 5.1 10.2 none none 10.2 4.9 Combined effects a 10.2
| |
| '.5.1 10 2 N 10. 2 N 10. 4 4.10 Net effects N . N a 10.2 LP Larger Potent>a HA Hot App @cable PS Potentially Significant I Insignificant S Significant N Negligible NL Ninor Locally PI Probably Insignificant HI No Implications
| |
| | |
| 5RIQGE CRANE TRAVELING SCREEN g
| |
| I s'I-- a I E,NCLOSUR E.
| |
| S-PUMPS I'2>5OOGPR. EACH
| |
| '2 HOP IZ. CEI'TRIF. TRESTLE SCR,E,Btl WASH PuMPS. EXTREME. H.W. 3'T S f"" 1 I 2, GOO G PM.
| |
| I I I I
| |
| ~
| |
| I I
| |
| I--
| |
| I I f
| |
| I I I
| |
| I I r
| |
| II I f
| |
| .. .I I I TRASH RAKING OECK 359 (DES'.GN TOP OI: STOP LOGS CRI ERION
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 f FUR EWATERING)
| |
| EKISIING GRACE TRASH RACK, TO PLANT hCC E SS TO TRASH THRUST I5LOCK P hiCING DECK. I I I I I 33 I r
| |
| I TRASH I P ACKET FISH PA$ 5AGE, A A 1
| |
| FISH PASSAGE 2 SE CTI ON DECK PLAN WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM MODIFIED COHVENTIONAL INTAKE WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 PLAN AND SECTION Environmental Report, 10.2-1
| |
| 'IG.
| |
| | |
| 0 0
| |
| '
| |
| o Cn OOO SUCKS'lA,'t 0'hl 1
| |
| ACCESS TRESTLE
| |
| /
| |
| I
| |
| ~ TO Pl A,NT I
| |
| X IN TAKE, STWuCTuzt-:
| |
| f/ /
| |
| 3658 r
| |
| I I
| |
| ri/ 0 Goo j. 948 x!
| |
| ~ // " ~
| |
| 350 i //
| |
| FIGHT
| |
| . /
| |
| o lg) 4)
| |
| 0 n~go
| |
| //'b/
| |
| WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM MODIFIED CONVENTIONAL INTAKE WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 GENERAL ARRANGEMENT PLAN Environmental Report 10.2-2
| |
| | |
| W Ql 0 5 KQS 70 f OO JN Q Pl Q puM STRucTUIZE III X A Ul 0RC OV )
| |
| Zf(
| |
| ~'
| |
| .
| |
| =
| |
| OI5Tal SUTIO ygO S RG I) I I'I I FLOW CONT$ ZOL STRU TUR656ATE5 3&o
| |
| &T ILLIHGe BASIblS
| |
| ~E& ) Oii0
| |
| 'A FILT,EQ. 8CP Q H ig IVBR5IOg
| |
| :i 'HALI 35o H Q ~
| |
| Q g w yIVS~
| |
| O COIu<~'"
| |
| M I
| |
| ErJ z
| |
| | |
| FILTER. CAPACIT'( ~c.S,OC'Ogp~
| |
| (9 C&LL5 IN OPERATION, 2 CELLS PELF.Plr"w 3~IS SAC.KWAS HID &) I I
| |
| ( r g.L.W. 34&-'I;;
| |
| puMP 5TQUcTURE' IL IrI-I DISTR,IEU . IOH ~4 ~+
| |
| TRUCTLIr.E' ~ I I
| |
| ((
| |
| II !
| |
| I I) 6-4 @AIR
| |
| ~
| |
| I Cop AIR P I P t-;&
| |
| -
| |
| s~c~e,~~- SHE.ET G~~DEDje<ou~
| |
| I I I f' PILIWCz FILT'ER E E.D 4 I I I
| |
| &EQUI .8 A.-A I
| |
| IZ 4 VVTI:-I." I I
| |
| I II I I I I I-. TYF.'ILTCP. CC,LL
| |
| !
| |
| I I-I LI LJ
| |
| (-) -+ ..I V
| |
| I dl V
| |
| 42'' II Li)
| |
| II-,
| |
| I PLIMP5 l2,&CCq~~EACI-I i II.
| |
| (I ~Pa~a) II [ LL i Bl. B5S I
| |
| I
| |
| ~sI I
| |
| i I
| |
| I IL I N L W. 343-'
| |
| I I I I
| |
| L ~ ~ o II I I
| |
| [, '4 I 4 4
| |
| SHEET PILING BECTIOg P.-R F IL'TE:I" BED hloT 'To TALC WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFILTRATION BED INTAKE WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 PLAN AND SECTIONS Environmental Report FIG. 10.2-4
| |
| | |
| '0 I 0
| |
| 'N TO [LANT 980 ~ (At ' tc tc rt(aarb 370 PUMP STRU ftIRE bacA I L Tb PI.ANT- 'Tbcvk II L, I II II II OHTROL STRUCTURE IÃ(>>
| |
| Ia ~
| |
| ~ ~ , (,:(
| |
| ~~
| |
| II ~ ~
| |
| STILCIII4 IIASIN A O'TILLIHR SASIHS LI tat+ P Itt IA (CSEE EXH 8 Tat IIPT CLCC a(b E IIP(000 ~ ~ ~
| |
| f Ab IC'O.
| |
| aa(
| |
| ~
| |
| tt 330
| |
| : CCIHCRETE aCHAHHE~L OIVERSIOH I.
| |
| +IP WAI I CATb TTtat I I't
| |
| ~ Cblbbbat T. Pa""'tall i! N.Ltaf SPTI I I
| |
| I I
| |
| II CAT b I PPCaa
| |
| @ra(tb CIITTINT bPCL>>
| |
| '.I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ w C ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| '.
| |
| .' riltb'~,"
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ '-
| |
| j V U ~P S T.P.uCTVEr
| |
| ~CT~T I
| |
| WATER JET PIPES II II If I
| |
| 'r~ SHEET PILE CONCRETE i a..a OISCHA (PE WALL CHAHNEL CANAL PERP.
| |
| STILLIHC EASI S SEE EARS VIATER JET I ( - SHEET PILIH6 PIPES FOR ~ OIVIDITIIP WALl PIPE >ILT AC(ITATIOg A
| |
| 5EC rIOH A-A, EhlLARGEO PLhIII WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM PERFORATED PIPE INTAKE WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 IN OFF-RIVER CARTEL Environmental Report FIG. 10.2-5
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER DISCHARGE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES The single rectangular slot jet was chosen as the preferred discharge type for WNP-2, based on cost and effectiveness of mixing of the effluent with the river. An evaluation of the alternatives that were considered during the selection of the discharge system, including their economical and environmental costs, is given in the WNP-2 Construction Permit Stage Environ-mental Report and the WNP-2 USAEC Final Environmental State-ment. Since those documents, no technological advances have occured which would result in a discharge with a better economical-environmental cost-benefit balance.
| |
| 10.3-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 10.4 CHEMICAL WASTE TREATMENT 10.4.1 Ran e of Alternatives The design for the WNP-2 chemical waste treatment system is described in Section'.6. In this design, chemicals are neu-tralized and discharged to the heat dissipation system. Ulti-mately, these wastes are discharged to the Columbia River"'.
| |
| with the cooling tower blowdown.
| |
| An alternative to this design would be to treat only the small volumes of strong chemical waste produced by the demineralizer.
| |
| These wastes would be neutralized so as to avoid system cor-rosion and would be reduced in volume, for eventual off-site disposal, by evaporation. The following techniques were con-sidered:
| |
| a~ Thermal Eva oration Thermal evaporation has the advantage of recover-ing useful water from the chemical wastes. Steam or electrically heated evaporator equipment would produce distilled water and concentrate non-vola-tile salts for periodic off-site disposal.
| |
| : b. Atmos heric Eva oration Atmospheric evaporation of excess water in any evaporation-leaching pond has the advantage of negligible operating attention. A large evapora-tion-leeching pond is being used for the collection and disposal of storm water, roof drains, area run-off and other miscellaneous drains from the site.
| |
| The additional load imparted by the chemical waste treatment system would be negligible.
| |
| 10.4.2 Alternatives Com ared Based on Short Term Environmental Effects The short-term environmental effects due to construction would be negligible. The small incremental load imparted by the chemical waste system would not produce any measurable short term environmental effect.
| |
| 10.4.3 Alternatives Com ared Based on Lon Term Enyxron'men'tal'ffects The two alternates suggested would have a minimal long term environmental effect as no chemical wastes would be discharged to the river. The, non-volatile salts present in the neutra-lizer wastes would ultimately be returned to the environment either at an off-site disposal location or through percolation 10.4-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER into the ground at the evaporation-leaching pond.
| |
| 10.4.4 Selected S stem Monetized costs for the alternative systems were not determined.
| |
| The incremental cost associated with disposal by means of the heat dissipation system or the evaporation-leaching pond were too small to be calculated in a meaningful manner. Meaningful costs for the thermal evaporation approach were not calculated because of the low costs involved .in alternative methods of disposal. The recommended system described in Section 3.6 was chosen for the following reasons:
| |
| : a. It provides the simplest and most reliable system.
| |
| : b. The environmental impact, of discharging treated neutralized effluents to the river will be minimal.
| |
| This is discussed in subsection 10.4.8.
| |
| c While the wastes will be produced infrequently, in
| |
| ~
| |
| small batches, it will be neutralized, monitored, and released to the Columbia River with the cooling tower blowdown, so that tinual surveillance.
| |
| it will be subject to con-10.4.S Power Consum tion Thermal evaporation would require small amounts of energy to vaporize the water present in the neutralized wastes. An average of under 200 pounds per hour of saturated steam would be required. Pumping power requirements for either evaporation method, or the method to be installed, would be negligible.
| |
| 10.4.6 Effect on Ca acit Factor
| |
| .Neither of the alternatives considered would have any effect on the plant capacity factor.
| |
| 10.4.7 Monetized Cost The annual cost of the alternatives was not calculated because of the very small size equipment required for evaporation and the negligible incremental cost of evaporation-leaching pond method.
| |
| 10.4.8 Environmental Effects The chemicals returned to the river by the selected method will increase the concentration of dissolved solids in the Columbia River, however, the increase in concentration of dissolved solids would be too small to be measured. The neutralized chemical waste produced by the demineralized plant 10.4-2
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER would contain approximately 2300 pounds of neutral salts per month. The blowdown water from the cooling tower would con-tain about 360,000 pounds of dissolved salts per month, with-drawn from and returned to the river.
| |
| : 10. 4-3
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER BIOCIDE TREATMENT 10.5.1 Ran e of Alternatives The design for the WNP-2 biological control system is described in Section 3.6. In this design intermittent chlorination of the circulating water will be used for the control of fouling organisms. No other chemical biocides are anticipated at this time.
| |
| Experience indicates that the most effective means of control-ling biological growths in electric generating utility cooling water systems, compatible with EPA guidelines, is intermittent chlorination. It is anticipated that approximately 240 lbs of chlorine per day will be injected, intermittently, into the circulating water line upstream of the main condenser. Chlorine feed will be at a rate of approximately 2.5 ppm, based on the circulating water flow 'rate, for a period of 15-'20 minutes every 6-8 hours, to control biological growths.
| |
| Chlorine dosage will be automatically controlled so that a con-centration of about 0.5 ppm will be present after the condenser, in the water going to the cooling tower. It is anticipated that this residual level, after the condenser, will be suf-ficient to control biological growths. In order to prevent excessive quantities of chlorine passing to the environment, the cooling tower blowdown valve will be closed automatically, during the period when chlorine is being added to the system and until the concentration has dropped to below 0.1 mg/l.
| |
| This, combined with the natural chlorine demand of the cir-culating water will prevent the concentrations of chlorine in the cooling tower blowdown from becoming too great.
| |
| At the present time there are no demonstrated effective alter-nates to chlorination for biological control of utility cir-culating water systems. The following methods were considered:
| |
| a ~ Mechanical Cleanin Mechanical cleaning, via abrasive materials, of con-denser tube surfaces has not been demonstrated to be effective as a means of controlling fouling. Ex-perience indicates that it is necessary to use inter-mittent chlorination along with mechanical cleaning methods to maintain station availability.
| |
| : b. Acrolein Treatment Acrolein is an extremely toxic agent, capable of con-recir-trolling biological activity and growths inbasis).
| |
| culating water systems (on an experimental The effectiveness of acrolein treatment has not been 10.5-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER demonstrated Also, acrolein in utility cooling water systems.
| |
| may not be discharged to the environ-ment and would require neutralization with sodium sulphite which in turn could be considered a pollu-tant. There are no available automatic analyzers for acrolein so that routine monitoring would not be a possible alternate.
| |
| 10.5.2 Alternatives Com ared Based on Short Term Environ-ment'al'f fee'ts The short term environmental effects due to construction would be negligible. The use of mechanical cleaning along with chlorination would make no difference in the quality of the discharge. The environmental effects of acrolein or neutra-lized acrolein-sodium sulphite solutions have not been fully determined.
| |
| 10.5.3 Alternatives Com ared Based on Lon Term Enyi'r'on-mental E fects The long term environmental effects of chemical cleaning com-bined with chlorination would be the same as the intermittent chlorination method currently proposed. The long term effects of the discharge of acrolein or neutralized acrolein-sodium sulphite solutions is not fully understood.
| |
| 10.5.4 Selected S stem Monitized costs for alternative systems were not, determined.
| |
| Neither of the alternatives considered were operationally nor environmentally superior to the intermittent chlorination pro-posed. The recommended system described in Section 3.6 was chosen because:
| |
| a~ Intermittent chlorination has been demonstrated to be effective in similar systems.
| |
| : b. Chlorine monitoring and feeding equipment has been demonstrated to be reliable in similar systems.
| |
| C~ The total system can be operated under control using established analytical methods and instru-mentation capable of monitoring discharge, and capable of detecting residuals present, in the blowdown water.
| |
| if any, 10.5.5 Power Consum tion Mechanical cleaning of the condenser using an abrasive ball technique would require small amounts of energy to collect and transport the abrasive materials. The exact energy re-10.5-2
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER quirement was not calculated. Energy requirements for the acrolein system would be comparable to the intermittent chlorination system.
| |
| 10.5.6 Effect on Ca acit Factor None of the alternatives considered would have any effect on the plant capacity factor.
| |
| 10.5.7 Monetized Cost annual cost of the alternatives were not calculated be-
| |
| 'he cause of the lack of real value of the alternatives.
| |
| 10.5.8 Environmental Effects The composition of the cooling tower blowdown water with bio-logical control by means of intermittent, chlorination or inter-mittent chlorination combined with mechanical cleaning would be essentially identical. The environmental effects of small quantities of acrolein or acrolein neutralized with. sodium sulphite have 'not been fully explored.
| |
| 10.5-3
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL 10.6 SANITARY WASTE SYSTEM The WNP-2 sanitary waste treatment system has been designed for a maxi-mum population of 5750 persons, at 30 gallons per capita per day, pro-ducing a total maximum of 170,000 gallons of waste water per day.
| |
| 10.6.1 Ran e of Alternatives The design for the WNP-2 sanitary waste treatment system is described in Section 3.7. Alternative methods for the disposal of sanitary waste include:
| |
| : a. Munici al Sewa e Plant Disposal of WNP-2 sanitary waste to a municipal waste treat-ment facility would result in no disposal facilities at the site. However, the nearest municipal plant is some 15 miles remote and would present extreme problems in the transport of the sewage, cost of the pipe line and maintenance of the re-mote pumping stations.
| |
| I
| |
| : b. 'iolo ical Sewa'e Treatment Facilit A standard package type biological treatment facility of the extended aeration type could be provided. This type of system would include aeration of. the incoming waste with recycled activated sludge, gravity separation of the biological floe and excessive sludge. The clarified supernatent would be dis-
| |
| /
| |
| charged to the Columbia River.
| |
| : c. Se tic Tank/Drainf i el d Fac i l it At Construction Permit stage, a septic tank system was selec-ted on the basis of least cost and the negligible environ-mental impact. The system was designed for 100 persons and was supplemented during, the construction phase by holding tanks and chemical toilets, the contents of which were hauled off-site sewage lagoons. Continued use of this system
| |
| 'o would require rehabilitation and expension of the drainfield to accoranodate greater than anticipated loads.
| |
| 10.6.2 Aternatives Com ared Based on Short Term Environmental Effects The shor t term environmental effects of the selected system are slightly greater than those resulting from continued operation of the pre-existing septic tank and waste disposal operation. This is because of the necessary disruption of soil and vegetation caused by construction of the lagoons and sewer lines. The environmental effects of the selec-ted system are not significantly greater than those that would result from the other alternatives.
| |
| 10.6-1 Amendment 5 July 1981
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL 10.6.3 Alternatives Com ared Based on Lon Term Environmental Effects The selected system is expected to have less long term environmental effects than continued operation of the pre-existing septic tanks and holding tanks. The large, but highly variable, loads experienced during the construction and start-up phases requires that a significant frac-tion of the wastes be hauled off-site to a private lagoon in east Pasco with a round trip distance of 70 miles. This represents a significant expenditure of fuel. Futhermore, the sewage lagoon doesn't comply with the State treatment standards. and is subject to closure for possible groundwater contamination. The selected system will provide a greater degree of treatment for wastes discharged to the soil than was provided by the septic tank and drainfield. The long term effects of the other alternatives are no greater than those associated with the selected system.
| |
| 1 ..4 '11 S <<
| |
| The aerobic lagoon/stabilization pond system described in Section 3.7.1 was chosen for the following reasons:
| |
| : a. It is the simplest and most reliable system for providing a central waste treatment facility that serves the three Supply System nuclear projects. It is the most flexible system for accommodating the variable waste loads from the three plants from construction through operation.
| |
| : b. Operation of the system would not result in significant environmental impacts.
| |
| : c. The system provided a least-cost method of treating wastes anticipated for the duration of the plant operat-ing life.
| |
| : d. The Supply System's construction activities were not vul-nerable to closure of an off-site sewage treatment faci 1-ity or to increases in the disposal charges as they would be with continued operation of the septic tank and chem-ical toilet operation.
| |
| 10.6.5 Ener Consum tion Although the selected system requires electrical energy for blowers and pump stations, net energy consumption in the near-term should be less than experienced with the septic tank/holding tank/chemical toilet oper-ation because of the fuel expended in hauling the waste off-site. In the longterm, energy consumption will be reduced because during the 10.6-2 Amendment 5 July 1981
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER-OL operation phase for the three projects, the total work force and, hence, the waste load wi 11 be reduced resulting in corresponding decreases in the requirement for pumping and forced aeration (the latter perhaps being eliminated).
| |
| 10.6.6 Effect on Ca acit None of the alternatives considered would have any effect on the plant capacity factor.
| |
| 10.6.7 Monetized Cost A cost comparison showed that the selected system enjoyed a 10:1 advan-tage in annual cost over continued operation of the numerous septic tanks and holding tanks at the three Supply System plants. With respect to an upgraded and enlarged septic tank/drain field, ratio was 1>:1 and 0
| |
| compared to an activated sludge package plant it was 2>>'.1.
| |
| 10.6.8 Environmental Effects The selected system is expected to have the least environmental effect of the alternatives. The most significant effect of the selected system is the disturbance of soil and vegetation caused by its construction and the long-term occupation of approximately 17 acres.
| |
| 10.6-3 Amendment 5 July 1981
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 10.7 LIQUID RADWASTE SYSTEMS The design of the plant limits the quantities of radioactive materials in effluents including liquid wastes to levels which are within the numerical guides for design objectives and limiting conditions of operations set forth in 10CFR50, Ap-pendix I, as indicated in Sections 3.5 and 5.2.
| |
| 10.7-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 10.8 GASEOUS RADWASTE SYSTEMS The design of the plant limits the quantities of radioactive materials in effluents including gaseous wastes to levels which are within the numerical guides for design objectives and limiting conditions of operations set forth in 10CFR50, Appendix I, as indicated in Sections 3.5 and 5.2.
| |
| 10.8-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 10.9 TRANSMISSION'FACILITIES The Bonneville Power Administration, is planning, designing, and constructing the transmission facilities for WNP-2. BPA.
| |
| has submitted an environmental impact statement~ ~ and the following assessment of the alternative facilities is taken from that document.
| |
| H. J. Ashe Substation Evaluation The requirements for a location in a specified relationship to transmission lines coming from WNP-2 did not allow con-siderable flexibility for the location of this substation and therefore only one potential site was identified. See section 3.9 for a description of the substation.
| |
| 10.9. 2 General Descri tion of the Pro osed and Alternate Routes Basic considerations in identifying the routing for the 500 KV Ashe-Hanford line were:
| |
| : l. availability of corridor width to accommodate additional parallel circuits,
| |
| : 2. avoidance of physical barriers,
| |
| : 3. compatibility with testing activities in the explosive test area,
| |
| : 4. environmental impact considerations, and
| |
| : 5. economic costs.
| |
| Two alternative routes were identified and considered.
| |
| Route A, the proposed route, is almost a straight-line cor-ridor between Ashe and Hanford passing through the explosive testing area. Alternative Route B would avoid actual ex-plosives testing areas but is longer and therefore more costly than Route A. No other viable alternate routes which are practical and competitive from either environmental or economic points of view have been identified. Table 10.9-1 gives a comparision of the alternative transmission routes.
| |
| The considerations in locating the 230 KV start-up line were based mainly on paralleling the 500 KV Ashe-Hanford line as far as possible, for the purpose of joint corridor use. For this reason, only the alternative 500 KV lines are con-sidered in the following sections. For information con-cering the 230 KV start-up line see Section 3.9. Figure 10.9-1 is an overall map of the alternative routes.
| |
| 10;9-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 10.9.2.1 Descri tion of Route A and its Im acts Route A has been separated into three sections. The line location is shown in Figure 10.9-2.
| |
| Section I The 18.3 mile Route A begins at WNP-2, passes through BPA's Ashe Substation (1/2 mile north of WNP-2) and proceeds north-westerly for 4.6 miles, turns west at a slight angle and continues northwest for another 3.1 miles to a crossing of the existing HEW No. 3, 230 KV line.
| |
| The first 7.7 miles are located 120 feet east of and parallel to the 230 KV Ashe Tap to ERDA's HEW No. 3 line.
| |
| Section II From the crossing of the 230 KV line, Route A continues for 3.4 miles to an angle point on Gable Mountain, then turns at a slight angle to continue northwest for 4.5 miles to the existing lower Monumental-Hanford 500 KV line right-of-way.
| |
| Section III The last 2.2 miles will be parallel to and 110 feet west of the existing 500 KV steel structured Lower Monumental-Hanford line.
| |
| Additional right-of-way width for a future line will be ac-quired along the east side of the proposed route over its entire length.
| |
| New right-of-way width required is as follows:
| |
| Section Ri ht-of-Wa Width 350 feet, to include WNP-2 230 KV start-up and other future lines.
| |
| 230 feet, except for the last 0.5 miles where the right-of-way width increases" from 230 feet to 350 feet.
| |
| 92.5 feet, of additional right-of-way will be needed west of and 87.5 feet east of the Lower Monumental-Hanford line.
| |
| 10.9-2
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 10.9.2.1.1 Costs of Route A Estimated costs for Route A, based on prices current in September, 1973, are:
| |
| Transmission Line $ 3,705,000 One Hanford Switching Station 500 KV terminal 640,000 Terminal equipment at Ashe Substation and land for the future 500 KV switch-yard at Ashe 603,000 F
| |
| Modifications at Hanford Substation 123,000 Power System Control 455,000 TOTAL $ 5,526,000 10.9.2.1.2 Land Use Access road requirements for the proposed route will be ap-proximately as follows:
| |
| Section I New Location on right-of-way 3 miles New location off right-of-way 5 miles Through the sand dunes area, approximately 3 miles of existing gravelled telephone line access road will be utilized. Short spur roads to the individual tower sites will be needed.
| |
| Section II New location on right-of-way 6 miles New location off right-of-way 0.5 miles Improvement on and off right-of-way None The existing Midway-Eagle Lake line access roads will be used on top of Gable Mountain. Only short spur roads will be required on top of the mountains.
| |
| Figure 10.9-3 is an aerial photograph of the proposed route and Figure 10.9-4 is a map of land use. The following table itemizes land cover crossed by Route A:
| |
| 10.9-3
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Sagebrush and Grass Comments Section I Route in Miles 7.7 Included the pro-posed 500 KV and 230 KV lines and future lines New easement 331 acreage Section II Route in Miles 7.9 Includes the pro-posed 500 KV line and the future line.
| |
| New easement 229 acreage Section III Route in Miles 2.2 Includes the pro-posed 500 KV line and the future line New easement acreage 52 New easements for the 18-mile Route A corridor will require 612 acres of land.
| |
| 10.9.2.1.3 Im act on Land Use Since the land crossed by the Route A (See Figure 10.9-3) is mostly open space, impacts will be minimal. If the reservation were opened for public use, existing cover and potential land use would be disrupted to the extent required for easement and access road requirements. Route A, however, is within the Hanford Reservation in which the public use is restricted by ERDA for safety and security reasons. The route will cross the explosives testing area; however, there will be little interference with actual testing. BPA and calls for relocation of ERDA have reached an agreement which certain facilities in the testing area.
| |
| Erosion is discussed in Section 4.2.4.
| |
| 10.9.2.1.4 Im act on Natural and Cultural Resources Recreation There are no recreational facilities within the Hanford Reservation.
| |
| : 10. 9-4
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER Historic and Archeolo ical Sites As shown in Figure 10.9-4, route A does not come near any identified historic or archeological sites. The Washington Archeological Resource Center conducted a survey in March 1974 and concluded that no archeological, historical or paleonto-logical sites will be endangered.
| |
| Wildlife and Ve etation Route A would not adversely affect any wildlife other than sage grouse, except during the construction period, when some animals would be driven away for a short time. This route would not cross any streams.
| |
| Due to the clearing of sagebrush from main access roads and tower sites, songbirds, birds of prey, and upland birds with-in the vicinity may be temporarily disturbed.
| |
| Scenic Except for Gable Mountain, Route A does not cross any scenic resources. Towers constructed on Route A will be visible from quite a distance due to the flat terrain in the Reservation,
| |
| .but are not expected to adversely affect the public.
| |
| 10.9.2.2 Descri tion of Alternate Route B and Its Im acts The discussion of this alternative contemplates that the pro-posed Ashe Tap to AEC HEW No. 3, 230 KV line and a future line would be built parallel to Route B, Thereby retaining all facilities in a single corridor.
| |
| Alternate Route B has been separated into three sections in order to discuss the associated impacts and requirements.
| |
| The line location is shown in Figure 10.9-5.
| |
| Section I The 18.8 mile route would begin at WNP-2 the travel 0.5 miles to the BPA Ashe Substation, then proceed northwest for 5.9 miles to a crossing of the Ashe Tap to the HEW No. 3, 230 KV line. The first 5.9 miles would be parallel to an 120 feet east of the Ashe Tap to the HEW No. 3, 230 KV line.
| |
| Section II Route B would continue for 6.6 Miles to an angle point. It would then turn north for 4.5 miles to a point 110 feet west of the Lower Monumental-Hanford 500 KV line.
| |
| 10.9-5
| |
| | |
| ~ WNP-2 ER Section III This route would then turn northwest and proceed for 1.8 miles while parallel to the Lower Monumental-Hanford line at a sep-aration of 110 feet, from the BPA's Hanford Switching Station.
| |
| Additional right-of-way width for a future line would be acquired along the east side of this alternative.
| |
| New right-of-way width that would be required is as follows:
| |
| Section Ri ht-of-Wa Width 355 feet, would include WNP-2 230 KV start-up and other future lines.
| |
| 240 feet, except for the last 0.5 miles where the right-of-way width would increase from 240 feet to 355 feet.
| |
| 107.5 feet, of additional right-of-way would be needed west of the 87.5 feet east of the Lower Monu-mental Hanford line for a total of 195 feet.
| |
| Tower design for Alternate B would be identical to that. de-scribed for proposed Route A. (See Figure 3.9-2).
| |
| 10.9.2.2.1 Costs of Route B Estimated costs for Route B, based on prices current in September 1973, are:
| |
| Transmission Line $ 3,940,000 One Hanford Switching Station 500 KV terminal 640,000 Terminal equipment at Ashe Substation and land for the 500 KV switchyard at Ashe 603,000 Modifications at Hanford Substation 123,000 Power System Control 455.000 TOTAL $ 5,761,000 10.9-6
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 10.9.2.2.2 Land Use Access road requirements would be approximately as follows:
| |
| Section I New location on right-of-way 3 miles New location off right-of-way 6 miles Section II Existing dirt roads would be used for access to Gable Mountain.
| |
| Section III In Section III there are no new access road locations, improve-ments, or easements, on or off right-of-way required.
| |
| The existing Lower Monumental-Hanford access road system would be used. Short spur roads from the existing access roads to the individual towers of Route B would be required.
| |
| Figure 10.9-3 is an aerial photograph of the proposed route and Figure 10.9-4 is a land use map. The following Table describes the miles of line and acres of land use covered by the proposed route.
| |
| Sagebrush and Grass Comments Section I Route in Miles 5.9 Would include the
| |
| ,alternate 500 and 230 KV lines and the future line.
| |
| New easement 255 acreage Section II Route in Miles 11.1 Would include the alternate 500 KV line and a future line.
| |
| New easement 322 acreage Section III Route in Miles 1.8 Would include the alternate 500 KV line and a future line'.
| |
| 10.9-7
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER New easement 42 acreage New easements for the 18.8 mile Route B would require 619 acres of land.
| |
| 10.9.2.2.3 Im acts on Land Use Since the land crossed by Route B is mostly unused (See Figure 10.9-3), open space impacts will negligible. If ERDA opened the reservation for public use, existing cover and potential land use would be disrupted to the extent quantified for ease-ment and access road requirements previously indicated. This route would be with the ERDA Hanford Reservation where the public access is restricted by ERDA for safety and security reasons. Route B would be near the explosive testing area's western fringes. The effects of Route B on erosion would be the same as that caused by Route A.
| |
| 10.9.2.2.4 Im acts on Natural and Cultural Resources Recreation There are no recreational facilities within the study area.
| |
| Historic and Archeolo ical Sites As shown in Figure 10.9-4, route B would not cross any identified historic or archeological sites.
| |
| Wildlife and Ve etation Same effects as Route A.
| |
| Scenic Due to flat terrain, this route's towers could be seen from several miles. Some towers on Gable Mountain would be sky-lined and therefore would be visible from greater distances than in the case of Route A.
| |
| 10.9-8
| |
| | |
| TABLE 10.9-1
| |
| 'ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION 'ROUTES Sheet 1 of 2 Alternatives Proposed, (A) (B)
| |
| Capital Cost Base + $ 235,000 Reference Section 10.9.2.1 10.9.2.2 Environmental Costs Units
| |
| : 1. Land Use
| |
| ~Rank Alternative routes in terms of amount of from conflict with present worst 6 planned land uses) to best
| |
| : 2. Pro ert Values (Rank Alternative routes NTA NTA in terms of total loss in property values)
| |
| (Rank Alternative routes All rights of Same as proposed in terms of envisioned way may be used multiple use of land preempted by right-of-way)
| |
| : 4. Length of New Rights-of-Way Required Miles 18 18.8
| |
| : 5. Number and Length of New Access and Service Miles 14. 5 19 Roads Required
| |
| | |
| TABLE 10 . 9-1 ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISS'ION ROUTES (Sheet 2 of 2)
| |
| Alternatives Proposed (A)
| |
| Number of major road crossings 14 in vicinity of intersection or interchanges a) Number of major water ways 0 b) and railroad crossings 3 Number of crest ridge, or other high point crossings Number of "Long Views" or transmission lines perpen-dicular to highways 6 water-ways Length of above trans- Miles mission line in or through visually sensitive area NTA NOT AVAILABLE
| |
| | |
| ~f jC C ~
| |
| lU gO'"
| |
| Lower Mon.- Honford Hanford le IL
| |
| ~~~r nfl r s E
| |
| E 0
| |
| CP, C
| |
| Gable W O
| |
| unrai E'
| |
| >TS gpss Ky IL1gdw 3Q-K~
| |
| eon ron Qg Government
| |
| '>ro ci Ashe WNP-2 Benton SW Sta.
| |
| oo C 0 'i 2 3 4 6 8, N Scaia ln Miles FFTF (1)
| |
| WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM OVERALL MAP OF ROUTES WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 nA" AND "B" Environmental Report FIG. 10.9-1
| |
| | |
| Q DETAIL C MIDWAY-BENTON r-~ I I 5 KV LM-H r-a +o I DE TAIL A HE- HANFORD I P 1 ASHE
| |
| -,,I I SUBSTA.
| |
| DfTAIL 8 HE W 3 230KVI HANFORD I I. ~
| |
| SUBSTA.
| |
| ~o+
| |
| D 0 B Al WNP-2 a
| |
| O ABOVE NOT TO SCALE
| |
| +
| |
| SCALE OF DETAILS BELOW ARE I = 200 DETAIL "A" DETAIL B'ETAIL "C PARALLEL TO 230 KV NEW R/W SECTION PARALLEL TO LM-H R/W R/W R/W (For turure lloe
| |
| -H 500 KV A-H 500 KV u( LM-H 500 KV gR/W R/W A-HEW +3 23 KV PI 7A-H 5 0 KV N
| |
| rR/W R/W RIGHT OF WAY A-H ASHE HANFORD I A-HEW 3 ASHE TAP TO HEW LM-H LOWER MONUMENTAL-HANFORD M-EL MIDWAYEAGLE LAKE HEW HANFORD ENERGY WORKS NEW R/W WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM RIGHT OF WAY DETAIL MAP (l)
| |
| WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 ROUTE "A" Environmental Report FIG. 10.9-2
| |
| | |
| @gal 4fg" (1)
| |
| WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF LAND WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 CROSSED BY TRANSMISSION LINES Environmental Report FIG. 10.9-3
| |
| | |
| ev
| |
| * i t
| |
| '~'~'
| |
| '-'.'.-R. 26 'E'',-,'-'''.'' s
| |
| '
| |
| ',.:s."R"'27,;"E.',, -,". R 28,E tie>>'Ill, p Qs ri hil)i I/s
| |
| >)) j~)
| |
| 14 i')i N s4 s1/ ,sllr, rains...tlr )i
| |
| 'is ower on. - en or Hanford
| |
| * st ,t(in l ,>>il
| |
| >>ii ssli tl), 0
| |
| .1lo
| |
| ,! s
| |
| ~e k,
| |
| olin ,t(,
| |
| a w',tr,, "i '(,'lia)Ie,>>n ittr tl W
| |
| >>li j, O tla ,tlfi sv/O4+t eo aint E' ra Kv ..iso v",-
| |
| S ti)
| |
| 'HEW """ I) D.
| |
| +re
| |
| ,'i
| |
| '
| |
| Goi)pinment r,$ .
| |
| 0 1, r2",.)3,','4 "'.Si",6 n l%att'MICIS a 'l' t
| |
| ~q<<(q>> x +gag N ,,
| |
| -Scale iq.lgiles;.."..
| |
| 7t g~qb4)t RANGELAND 'e,bs" st
| |
| ')i Grassland sii OTHER WNP-2 "'
| |
| gi,Benton, AEC Installation SW Sta Explosive Test Site 'a
| |
| ,o 8 yen%
| |
| Active Sand Dunes 17 0
| |
| FFTF Archeological Site 0 s
| |
| 'LAND USE-(1)
| |
| WASHXNGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO ~ 2 HANFORD RESERVATION Environmental Report.
| |
| FIG. lo-9-4
| |
| | |
| DETAIL C
| |
| -a MIDWAY-BENTON ( I5 I
| |
| LM-H o MIDWAY-BENTON I I5 KV c.
| |
| ASHE DE'TAIL B
| |
| +
| |
| +g ~ DETAIL A r" SUBSTA.
| |
| HANFORD +I r- ~O 3< SU BSTA. 0~0 C) 0 q,g +$
| |
| + p5 0
| |
| O ABOVE NOT TO SCALE DETAIL "A'CALE OF DETAILS BELOW ARE DETAIL 'B'ETAIL I = 200 "C"
| |
| R I
| |
| PARALLEL TO 230 KV W
| |
| O NEW R/W SECTION R W
| |
| + For r'~ nr I urure line Y ~ PARALLEL TO LM-H R/W A-H 500 KV Io Py9a LM-H 500 KV 0
| |
| I'~R W
| |
| +ru
| |
| ~RW R/W .. RIGHT OF WAY A-H ASHE HANFORD I A-HEW 3 ASHE TAP TO HEW 3 (ALTERNATE)
| |
| LM -H . LOWER MONUMENTA'L- HANFORD M-EL MIDWAYEAGLE LAK E HEW HANFORD ENERGY WORKS Viiir NEW R/W WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM RIGHT OF WAY DETAIL MAP (l)
| |
| WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 ROUTE "B" Environmental Report FIG. 10.9-5
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 10.10 OTHER SYSTEMS There are no other systems that need to be considered for this plant.
| |
| : 10. 10-1
| |
| | |
| NNP -2 ER CHAPTER ll
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS
| |
| | |
| ==11.1 INTRODUCTION==
| |
| | |
| In the Environmental Report at-the construction permit stage, and in earlier sections of this Environmental Report, data have been presented on the need for the facility, environmental and monetary costs and benefits of the faci-lity, and on various project and facility alternatives. The purpose of this section is to summarize and weigh the over-.
| |
| all benefits and costs of operating the completed plant.
| |
| This final balancing must of necessity be qualitative, since it, is not possible to quantify all of the costs and benefits in uniform units of measure.
| |
| 11.1-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 11.2 NEED FOR POWER The need for the electrical energy to be furnished by WNP-2 has been described in Chapter 1. The project is an essential component of the hydrothermal program in the Pacific Northwest, and will be depended upon to help fulfill the future power requirements projected in the West Group Forecast of Power Loads and Resources. Based upon the West, Group Forecast of March 1978, which assumed a May 1981 commercial operation date, the probability of not meeting firm energy loads in 1981-1982* is 14.5% with WNP-2 and 18.9% without WNP-2.
| |
| In 1982-1983 these respective probabilities, with and without, WNP-2, are 15.2$ and 24.4%. In 1983-1984 the probability of 1 not meetI.~g firm loads is 17.8t with wNp-2 and 30.5t without WNP-2.
| |
| *July 1, 1981 to June 30, 1982 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER ll. 3 Alternatives Numerous alternatives were considered in the Environmental Report for a construction permit. During plant construction, certain plant alternatives were incorporated into the plant design in an attempt to continuously optimize the benefit-cost balance of the project. Among these later changes were the selection of the cooling tower configuration and make-up water intake system design.
| |
| At this stage of the project, any further major changes can not be expected to show a desirable benefit-cost ratio.
| |
| Since enviromental factors have been considered since early design stages and have continued to receive consideration during the construction phase, the Supply System is confi-dent that the project can be operated as presently designed and constructed with no significant or lasting harm to the environment.
| |
| 11.3-1
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER 11.4 BENEFIT-COST BALANCE 11.4.1 Benefits The major benefits of operating WNP-2 are listed in Table 11.4-1. These various benefits have all been discussed in detail in the text of earlier chapters and are only summarized here.
| |
| 11.4.2 Costs The capital construction cost of WNP-2 is expected to be
| |
| $ 1.077 billion. Annual operating costs ar'e estimated to be about $ 137 million or 22.5 mills/kwhr at 63 percent, plant factor.
| |
| The environmental costs of operating WNP-2 are summarized in Table 11.4-2.
| |
| 11.4.3 Summar Benefit-Cost Anal sis After considering the various monetary, social, and environ-mental costs of operating WNP-2 and the corresponding benefits to be derived from its operation, the Supply System concludes that operation of WNP-2 represents a positive value to the immediate area where it is located,and to the Pacific Northwest.
| |
| Every effort has been made during design and construction of the facility to minimize environmental, social, and monetary costs of the project so that the plant is currently optimized form a benefit-cost standpoint.
| |
| 11.4-1 Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| NNP-2 ER TABLE 11.4-1
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| BENEFITS OF OPERATING WNP-2*
| |
| Item Benefit Expected Average Generation 6.1 billion kwhr/yr
| |
| : 2. Proportional Distribtuion of 30.9% Residential Electrical Energy (1990) 15. 3% Commercial 48.1% Industrial 5.7% Other 100.0% Total
| |
| : 3. Generation Taxes Over $2 million/year 50% to State for schools 22% to Counties 23% to Cities 38 to Fire Districts 2% to Library Districts
| |
| : 4. Use of By-Product Heat 4,000 GPM warm irrigation water for agricultural research
| |
| : 5. Direct Employment 104 operation staff 25 support staff 129 total employment
| |
| : 6. Public Facilities A permanent visitor center will be sponsored.
| |
| *Refer to Section 8.1.1 for details Amendment 1 May 1978
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 11.4-2
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF OPERATING WNP-2 (Sheet 1 of 4)
| |
| Reference Effect Section Si nificance Land Approximately 30 acres of shrub-steppe 2.1 Negligible represents a very. small land diverted to industrial use at the percentage of the available acreage plant site. of similar type (see Fig. 2.2-1).
| |
| Approximately 648 acres .of right-of-way 3.9 Negligible represents a very -small will be required for transmission. percentage of the available acreage of similar type (see Fig. 10.9-4).
| |
| Surface Water Consumptive use of water will=be about 5.1.2 Negligible represents only .05%, of 13,000 gpm. 5.1.4 average steam flow.
| |
| Thermal load from blowdown of WNP-2 plus 5. 1.2 Negligible - raises 0 bulk river tem-WNP-1/4 is 75,000 Btu/sec. perature only 0.033 F.
| |
| Thermal increases within a limited mixing 5.1.2 Slight thermal increases will vary zone. according to a sliding scale permit-ting increases at the mixing zone boundary of a few degrees at cooler river temperatures and a maximum of 0.5 F contributing to a tem-perature not exceeding 68reer F.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE ll. 4-2 (Sheet 2 (Continued) of 4)
| |
| Reference Effect Section Si nificance Increased total dissolved solids in 5.3.1 Negligible will increase bulk river Columbia River and within a limited concentrations by a maximum of 0.2%, and;.
| |
| mixing zone. concentrations at the limit of the mixing zone by a maximum of 14;.
| |
| f'L Ground Water Discharge of 2 gpm sanitary waste to 5.4 Negligible area has adequate drainage tile field. and absorption capacity.
| |
| Loss of drifting biota from impingement & 5.1.3 Slight less than 0.15% loss at worst passage. flow conditions.
| |
| Short time exposure of free floating 5. 1.3 Negligible exposure time is only 5 plankton to heated water and chemical 35 seconds and increases are small.
| |
| discharges.
| |
| Adverse effect of heated effluent and 5.1.3 Negligible increases will be small chemical discharges on salmonids. and limited-to a very small percentage of the river area. Acclimation and congregation will be discouraged due to intermittancy of discharges and fast stream velocities.
| |
| Adverse effect of heated and chemical 5.1.3 Negligible will be small and limited effluent discharges on benthic flora to a very small percentage of the and fauna. available habitat.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 11.4-2 (Continued)
| |
| (Sheet 3 of 4)
| |
| Reference Effect Section Si nificance Terrestrial Biota Accumulation of cooling tower drift salts Negligible a slow cumulative impact predicted to occur over a small area in soil.
| |
| which can be mitigated by irrigation leaching if necessary.
| |
| Air Some additional fogging and icing from 5.1.4 Negligible less than 1 hour fogging cooling tower plume. and 0.5 hour icing per year in worst sector. None on public highways.
| |
| Increased exposure of biota to radiation. 5.2 Negligible exposures of terrestrial and aquatic biota will be extremely small compared to those known or expected to cause significant somatic or genetic effects.
| |
| Increased individual exposures. 5.2 Negligible doses are projected to be less than 10CFR50 Appendix I Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limit-ing Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion "As Low as Resonably Achievable."
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER TABLE 11.4-2 (Continued)
| |
| (Sheet 4 of 4)
| |
| Reference Effect Section SicCnificance Increased population exposures. 5.2 Negligible the population total body dose from all pathways including radioactive materials transportation is estimated to be less than 0.02% of that received by the same population due to natural sources.
| |
| Aesthethic Tall structures intrude on a flat plain 3.1 Negligible facility is more than 12 landscape. miles from centers of population.
| |
| Noise level from operation of cooling 5.6 Negligible facility is far removed towers. from residential or unique wildlife habitats.
| |
| Socioeconomic Some increases needed in public sector 8.2.2.2 Negligible direct, project taxes and services. personal property taxes offset public sector costs.
| |
| | |
| WNP-2 ER CHAPTER 12 ENVIRONMENTAL''APPROVALS'ND'ONSULTATION 12.1 GENERAL 'STATE''ICENSING As an initial step in obtaining the required approvals WPPSS filed a Site Certification Application for WNP-2 with the Washington State Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council on January 28, 1971 Application Number 71-1.
| |
| The 1970 Washington State Legislature adopted an act creating a Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council. The purpose of the act was to balance the increasing demands for thermal power plant location and operation in conjunction with the broad interests of the public and to assure the preservation and protection of the quality of the environment while pro-viding abundant low cost electric energy to the citizens of the State of Washington. In 1976 the authority of this council was extended to all energy sources and is now named the Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC). The Siting'Council consists of the Directors of the various departments of State government which have an interest in or are affected by the construction of energy facilities in the State. The legisla-tion creates a means by which a utility proposing to build a thermal powered generating plant, having a capacity in excess of 250,000 kilowatts can, through one proceeding, satisfy all requirements of State law as well as the standards adopted pursuant to the legislation and, in an orderly manner, obtain certification from the State for a proposed site of such a generating facility. The effect of the issuance of certifi-cation is to bind the State and its departments, agencies, boards and commissions to the approval of the site and the construction and operation of the proposed plant. The issuance of the certificate is in lieu of any permit, certificate or similar document required for any department, agency, commis-sion or board of the State and has therefore been termed a "one stop" procedure for obtaining thermal power plant siting approval. The original statute establishing TPPSEC was adopted as Chapter 45, 1970 Session Laws of the State of Washington, Second Extraordinary Session, 41st Legislature, (which is also Chapter 80.50, Revised Code of Washington and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto in Chapter 463 of the Washington Administrative Code) and the amendment estab-lishing EFSEC was adopted in 1976.
| |
| Site Certification Hearings were held, starting January 10, 1972. The Site Certification was issued by the Governor of the State of Washington on May 17, 1972. Amendment 1 to the Certification, including the NPDES Permit, was issued September 25, 1975'.
| |
| 12.1-1
| |
| | |
| TABLE 12.1-1 10 3 PERMITS AND APPROVALS RE UIRED FOR PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION Date Approval
| |
| ~Aenc Statutor and Other Author it Permit or A royal Re uired U. S. Atomic Energy Comission 42 U.S.C. 2131 et. seq.; 1. Plant Construction Permit 3/73 42 U.S.C. 4321 U. S. Nucl. Regulatory Com. 42 U.S.C. 2131 et. seq.; 1. Plant Operating License 1/79 42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq.; 2. Nuclear Instrumentation License 7/77 42 U.S.C. 5841 et. seq.; 3. Special Nuclear Mat. License 7/77 Corps of Engineers, Sec. 10 (33 U.S.C. 403) Rivers 1. Dredging and Construction Permit 3/75 Walla Walla District and Harbors Act of 1899 for work in navigable waters.
| |
| Federal Aviation Admin. Federal Aviation Regulations, Notice of Proposed Construction 4/72 and State Aeronautic Com. Part 77; WAC 12-24 1. Meteorological Tower
| |
| : 2. Reactor Building 7/77 Division of Highways and 1. Permit for oversize or As required Transpor tation overweight vehicles.
| |
| State Department of Labor Washington Industr ial Safety Open for inspection for following and Industries and Health Act, 1973 items:
| |
| .a. Tunnels
| |
| : b. Occupational Health
| |
| : c. Electric Wiring and Apparatus
| |
| : d. Electric Workers
| |
| : e. Construction Standards
| |
| : f. -General Safety Standards
| |
| | |
| ..
| |
| TABLE 12.1-1 PERMITS AND APP}}
| |
